Mainville, Gagné, Beaupré

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing an appeal from a guilty verdict. Dismissed.

The appellant owns trucks and trailers and several of them were modified to integrate an additional cargo space on the metal section – the jack – connecting the trailer to the truck. The Court of Québec found the appellant guilty of letting a road vehicle whose number of axles, three in this case, exceed what was in the registration record, that is, two axles, on a public roadway. The trial judge dismissed the application to dismiss the charge presented by the appellant, who argued issue estoppel and the rules of horizontal stare decisis because, in February 2020, it was acquitted of the same charge. On the issue of calculating the number of axles, the trial judge rejected the interpretation of section 17 of the Regulation respecting road vehicle registration (CQLR, c. C-24.2, r. 29) accepted in the judgment rendered in February 2020. On appeal, the Superior Court judge confirmed that neither estoppel nor stare decisis applied.

Even when the three conditions for applying issue estoppel are met, the judge still has discretion to refuse to let the defendant benefit therefrom. Here, the Superior Court judge did not err in finding that the trial judge had not erred in rejecting the estoppel argument. The Court does not agree, however, on the essential reason for this conclusion.  Indeed, the main and controlling issue before the trial judge and the one who rendered judgment in 2020 did not hinge on the facts or the evidence, but on the interpretation of section 17 of the Regulation in light of the policy titled Truck Weighing Over 3,000 kg, which is a question of law that can be examined on its own, and which issue estoppel does not include.

Nor did the judge err in concluding that the horizontal stare decisis principle did not apply. While judges often follow judgments rendered by their colleagues in the same jurisdiction, they essentially do so for the sake of a better administration of justice; they are not compelled to do so as formally as they are with respect to appellate court rulings. Within the lower court, it all depends on the soundness and quality of the reasons in the judgment invoked as a [translation] “precedent” or, in the absence of a ruling by an appellate court, on the unanimity of the case law of that lower court on a given issue. In this case, the judgment of February 2020 was not an authority that would compel the other presiding justices of the peace, or even judges of the Court of Québec, to follow the interpretation of section 17 of the Regulation that was adopted, which is marked by haste, ambiguity, and doubt.

Finally, the interpretation of the first paragraph of section 17 of the Regulation stating that the length of the additional cargo space installed on the trailer jack must be excluded when measuring the total cargo space, because, according to the policy, this length is measured [translation] “excluding the jack”, is neither correct nor in compliance with the legislative objective of safety and caution on public roads. It should instead be understood that the jack is excluded when measuring the trailer’s total cargo space because, in accordance with its purpose, it is intended to hook the trailer to the truck pulling it, not to support additional cargo space.

Legislation interpreted: section 17 para. 1 of the Regulation respecting road vehicle registration

Text of the decision: http://citoyens.soquij.qc.ca