General Conditions of Civil Liability for Personal Acts

Overview

Art. 1457 CCQ is the cornerstone of extra-contractual civil liability (responsabilite civile extracontractuelle) in Quebec law. Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct incumbent on him or her, according to the circumstances, usages, or law, so as not to cause injury to another. Where a person endowed with reason (doue de raison) fails in this duty, he or she is liable for the injury caused by that fault (faute) and is bound to make reparation for it, whether the injury is bodily, moral, or material. The implementation of this regime depends on three conditions being met: a fault, damage (prejudice), and a causal link (lien de causalite) between the two. Each condition is governed by distinct rules of analysis and proof. This lesson addresses the general conditions of liability for personal acts, covering the capacity for discernment, the concept of fault in its conceptual, definitional, and qualitative dimensions, its assessment against reference standards and operational criteria, its principal special applications, and the principles governing causation.

Learning Objectives

• Explain the prerequisite of being endowed with reason (art. 1457 para. 2 CCQ) and its consequences for the liability regime applicable to minors and incapacitated persons.
• Distinguish fault from error and situate the concept of fault within the hierarchy of wrongful conduct (light fault, gross fault, intentional fault).
• Define civil fault on the basis of the doctrine of Baudouin, Deslauriers, and Moore and the consistent jurisprudence of Quebec courts.
• Qualify fault according to its modalities (act or omission, violation of a legislative or regulatory norm) and its gravity (simple, gross, intentional).
• Apply the standard of the reasonable, prudent, and diligent person to the assessment of fault in the extra-contractual context.
• Identify the principal special applications of fault: abuse of rights, liability of legal persons and their directors, state liability, neighbourhood disturbances, and violation of rights guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
• Distinguish physical causation from legal causation and articulate the principal theories of causation adopted by Quebec courts.
• Analyze the pragmatic approach of the courts in proving the causal link, including the role of presumptions and the breaking of the causal chain by a novus actus interveniens.

Key Concepts and Definitions

• Extra-contractual civil liability (responsabilite civile extracontractuelle): the obligation to make reparation for injury caused to another outside any contractual relationship (art. 1457 CCQ).
• Fault (faute civile): a failure to meet the duty of conduct imposed by the circumstances, usages, or law, assessed according to the standard of the reasonable person.
• Damage (prejudice): bodily, moral, or material injury suffered by the victim (art. 1457 CCQ).
• Causal link (lien de causalite): the direct and immediate connection between the fault and the damage, proven on a balance of probabilities.
• Reasonable person (personne raisonnable): the abstract reference standard for evaluating fault, replacing the former "bonus pater familias" (bon pere de famille).
• Endowed with reason (doue de raison): a person possessing the capacity for discernment, a prerequisite for the attribution of personal fault (art. 1457 para. 2 CCQ).
• Gross fault (faute lourde): insouciance, imprudence, or gross negligence (art. 1474 CCQ).
• Intentional fault (faute intentionnelle): conduct undertaken with knowledge that it will cause injury.
• Abuse of rights (abus de droit): exercise of a right in an excessive or unreasonable manner, or with the intent to harm another (arts. 6, 7 CCQ).
• Superior force (force majeure): an external, irresistible, and unforeseeable event (art. 1470 CCQ).
• Novus actus interveniens: a new event that breaks the chain of causation between the initial fault and the damage.

The Requirement of Being Endowed with Reason

Art. 1457 para. 2 CCQ establishes a prerequisite for any attribution of personal liability: the person must be endowed with reason. Only a person capable of discernment can commit a fault within the meaning of civil law. Young children and persons suffering from a mental incapacity that deprives them of the ability to distinguish right from wrong cannot have a personal fault imputed to them.

Where the person who caused the injury is not endowed with reason, his or her conduct is treated as superior force (force majeure) within the meaning of art. 1470 para. 2 CCQ. The victim cannot then obtain reparation on the basis of art. 1457 CCQ against the person who directly caused the harm. The legislator has, however, organized substitute mechanisms to ensure compensation. Holders of parental authority (autorite parentale) are liable for injury caused by a minor under their authority (art. 1459 CCQ), custodians, supervisors, and delegated educators are subject to a presumption of fault (art. 1460 CCQ), and tutors or de facto custodians of an incapacitated adult incur liability in cases of gross or intentional fault (art. 1461 CCQ). Art. 1462 CCQ completes this architecture by allowing the conduct of a person not endowed with reason to be treated as a fault if it would have constituted a fault in a person possessing the capacity for discernment.

Quebec jurisprudence sets the threshold of discernment at around seven years of age for children, although this assessment remains individual and based on the circumstances of each case. A minor endowed with reason incurs personal liability under art. 164 para. 2 CCQ and cannot invoke his or her minority to escape reparation.

On the victim's side, art. 1478 para. 2 CCQ provides that the fault of a victim who is not endowed with reason cannot be set up against that victim to reduce the indemnity. This protection prevents the defendant from taking advantage of the injured person's lack of discernment. Where, however, the conduct of a victim not endowed with reason constitutes an unforeseeable and irresistible event for the defendant, the latter may invoke superior force (art. 1470 CCQ) to obtain exoneration.

Fault

The Concept of Fault

Fault is the first condition of civil liability for personal acts. Its analysis requires a fundamental distinction between fault and mere error. An error of judgment or conduct does not reflect negligent behaviour; a prudent and diligent person, placed in the same circumstances, could have committed the same error without his or her conduct being considered deficient. Only fault, as a departure from the expected standard of conduct, gives rise to liability.

The classic illustration comes from the medical field. A physician who chooses between two medically defensible diagnoses and opts for the one that proves to be incorrect does not necessarily commit a fault. If the choice was reasonable in light of the clinical data available at the time of the decision, it is a non-faulty error. Liability arises when the physician departs from the standard of conduct that his or her peers would have respected in the same circumstances, that is, when the error ceases to be excusable and becomes a failure to observe the rules of the art.

The Definition of Fault

The Civil Code of Quebec does not provide a general definition of civil fault. Art. 1474 CCQ defines gross fault (faute lourde) as "insouciance, imprudence, or gross negligence," which indirectly illuminates the notion of ordinary fault without delimiting it. Doctrine and jurisprudence have filled this gap through systematic analysis.

According to Baudouin, Deslauriers, and Moore, civil fault is defined as the violation of the duty not to cause illegitimate harm to another, measured against the conduct of a reasonable person placed in the same circumstances. This doctrinal definition converges with the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada and Quebec courts, which adopt an objective standard: any conduct that departs from the standard of the reasonable, prudent, and diligent person constitutes a fault. The evaluation takes into account the nature of the activity, the foreseeable risks, and the precautions that this reference person would have taken.

Tancelin and Karim have also contributed to refining the contours of the concept. The doctrinal point of convergence lies in the objective character of the assessment: fault is judged not by the subjective awareness of the perpetrator, but by the standard of socially required conduct.

The Qualification of Fault

Quebec civil law distinguishes several categories of fault according to the nature of the conduct and its gravity.

Fault of action and fault of omission. Fault may result from an affirmative act (an imprudence, an active negligence) or from a wrongful failure to act (the failure to take the measures that the circumstances required). Fault by omission presupposes the existence of a duty to act, grounded in law, usages, or circumstances. The failure to warn of a known danger is a classic example.

Fault resulting from the violation of a pre-established norm. The violation of a statute, regulation, administrative standard, or penal provision constitutes a civil fault where the transgressed norm was aimed at protecting the category of persons to which the victim belongs. A penal offence creates a presumption of civil fault in the extra-contractual context. The breach of a contractual obligation may likewise constitute an extra-contractual fault with respect to third parties who were not parties to the contract.

Intentional fault and involuntary fault. Intentional fault requires the will to commit the wrongful act and knowledge of its injurious consequences. In Curateur public c. S.N.E. Hopital St-Ferdinand, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the distinction between the will to perform an act that proves to be faulty and the will to produce its harmful consequences. This distinction is determinative for the award of punitive damages under art. 49 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Involuntary fault, arising from imprudence or negligence, suffices to give rise to civil liability.

The gravity of fault and its implications. In principle, the lightest fault suffices to give rise to civil liability (art. 1457 CCQ). Gravity intervenes at several levels. Art. 1461 CCQ imposes a threshold of gross or intentional fault to engage the liability of the tutor or de facto custodian of an incapacitated adult. Art. 1471 CCQ protects the Good Samaritan by restricting liability to cases of gross or intentional fault. Art. 1474 CCQ prevents the limitation of liability for gross and intentional fault. Art. 1478 CCQ provides for apportionment of the indemnity between the author of the damage and the victim in proportion to the gravity of their respective faults.

The Assessment of Fault

Reference Standards

The former Quebec law borrowed from French law the standard of the "bonus pater familias" (bon pere de famille). The Civil Code of Quebec replaced this model with that of the reasonable, prudent, and diligent person (personne raisonnable, prudente et diligente), placed in the same circumstances as the defendant. The assessment remains objective: the court does not ask whether the defendant did his or her best according to his or her subjective capacities, but whether a reasonable person of the same category would have acted in the same way.

The standard adapts to the circumstances and the category of debtor. A professional is judged according to the norms of his or her profession; an automobile driver is evaluated against the standard of the reasonable driver in the same traffic conditions. The prudent person foresees reasonably foreseeable events, does not create dangerous situations, and does not tolerate those that constitute a trap for others.

Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada illuminate the scope of these reference standards. In Morin c. Blais, the Court established the principle that the violation of an elementary standard of prudence generates a presumption of causation between the fault and the damage. The burden of demonstrating the absence of a causal link then shifts to the defendant. In Roberge c. Bolduc, the Court confirmed that compliance with applicable norms (statutes, regulations, codes of ethics) does not constitute an absolute shield against liability. Conduct conforming to a regulatory or professional standard may remain faulty if, in the circumstances, a reasonable person would have taken additional precautions.

Analytical Criteria

The assessment of fault rests on two principal criteria.

Non-conformity with the conduct of the prudent person or with a pre-established norm. The court compares the defendant's conduct to the objective standard. The gap between the two grounds the conclusion of fault. Non-conformity is measured both against the model of the reasonable person and against legislative or regulatory norms aimed at protecting the victim. The violation of such a norm creates a presumption of fault, which the defendant may attempt to rebut by demonstrating that his or her conduct was reasonable despite the technical infraction.

Foreseeability. Quebec law requires that the damage have been reasonably foreseeable at the time of the fault. Only normally foreseeable events ground liability (Ouellet c. Cloutier, SCC). The criterion distinguishes the mere theoretical possibility from the real probability of a harmful event. An event that was unforeseeable in its concrete occurrence does not engage the liability of the person who could not reasonably have anticipated it. Once the type of damage was foreseeable, the precise extent of the harm need not have been foreseeable for liability to arise.

Special Applications

Abuse of Rights

Arts. 6 and 7 CCQ set the limits on the exercise of civil rights. Art. 6 requires the exercise of rights in good faith; art. 7 prohibits the exercise of a right with the intent to harm another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner, contrary to the requirements of good faith.

Abuse of rights (abus de droit) manifests in two forms. The first is malicious exercise: the holder of the right exercises it for the purpose of causing harm, without any legitimate advantage to himself or herself. Proof of malice may be direct or may result from a bundle of circumstantial indicators. The second form is objectively excessive exercise: the holder exercises his or her right in an unreasonable manner, causing disproportionate harm to another relative to the advantage derived. The assessment of excessive character is objective and based on the standard of the reasonable person.

A violation of arts. 6 and 7 CCQ constitutes a civil fault within the meaning of art. 1457 CCQ and gives rise to reparation for damage. A contravention of these provisions does not, however, automatically open the door to punitive damages. Art. 1621 para. 1 CCQ makes the award of punitive damages contingent upon an express statutory provision authorizing them.

Liability of Legal Persons and Their Directors

A legal person (personne morale) possesses a distinct juridical personality and full capacity to exercise rights (art. 311 CCQ). It incurs its own civil liability under art. 1457 CCQ through the intermediary of its organs: the board of directors, officers, and the general assembly of members. Acts performed by these organs in the exercise of their functions are attributed to the legal person itself.

Directors assume a distinct personal liability. Under art. 322 CCQ, they must act with prudence and diligence, honesty and loyalty, in the interest of the legal person. A breach of these duties may engage their personal liability both toward the legal person and toward third parties, on the basis of art. 1457 CCQ.

The rules of mandate (mandat) (arts. 2130, 2157, 2160 CCQ) apply to directors as mandataries. A mandatary who acts within the limits of his or her powers and in the name of the mandator is not personally bound toward third parties (art. 2157 CCQ). Personal liability arises when the director exceeds his or her powers, acts in his or her own name, fails to disclose the identity of the mandator when required to do so (art. 2159 CCQ), or commits a personal fault distinct from that of the legal person. The liability of the legal person and that of the director are not mutually exclusive: the victim may pursue both where their respective faults contributed to the damage.

State Liability

Art. 1376 CCQ subjects the State to the rules of civil liability under the general law. This principle of subjection applies to the provincial government, municipalities, and public bodies, subject to the rules of public law specific to them.

At the federal level, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (arts. 3, 4, 10, 11, 16-20) establishes a liability regime that refers to applicable provincial law. In Quebec, the federal Crown is therefore bound under the rules of the CCQ for the faults of its employees and for property in its custody.

The jurisprudence draws a fundamental distinction between the policy sphere and the operational sphere. Public policy decisions (resource allocation, budgetary choices, regulatory orientations) benefit from a relative immunity. Operational decisions (concrete implementation of policies, maintenance of infrastructure, delivery of public services) are subject to the ordinary fault regime. The boundary between the two spheres is assessed on a case-by-case basis according to the nature of the impugned decision.

Immunities granted to public servants and public bodies must result from an express legislative provision. They may be absolute (no proceedings possible regardless of the circumstances) or relative (liability engaged only in cases of gross or intentional fault). In the absence of a provision conferring an immunity, the general law regime applies in full.

Neighbourhood Disturbances

Art. 976 CCQ establishes a particular regime for neighbourhood inconveniences (troubles de voisinage). Neighbours must tolerate normal neighbourhood inconveniences that do not exceed the limits of tolerance they owe one another, having regard to the nature or location of their land or to local usages. Only abnormal or excessive inconveniences give rise to reparation. This regime differs fundamentally from art. 1457 CCQ in that it does not require proof of fault. Liability arises from the objective exceeding of the threshold of tolerance between neighbours, regardless of the good or bad faith of the author of the disturbance.

Conditions of application. The plaintiff must establish: (1) the existence of a neighbourhood relationship between the parties; (2) an abnormal or excessive inconvenience, assessed objectively according to the standard of a reasonable person placed in the same conditions of place and time; and (3) a causal link between the neighbour's activity and the inconvenience suffered.

The assessment standard is objective. The court evaluates whether a reasonable person, placed in the same circumstances, would consider the disturbance as exceeding the normal inconveniences of life in society. Relevant factors include the nature of the neighbourhood, the duration and intensity of the disturbance, the time at which it occurs, and the mitigation measures taken by the author of the disturbance. Compliance with municipal by-laws or permits does not constitute a complete defence if the inconveniences remain objectively abnormal.

Where the neighbourhood disturbance results from intentional conduct or a characterized fault, the victim has a parallel recourse based on art. 1457 CCQ. The two bases may be cumulated in the same proceeding.

Violation of Charter-Protected Rights

Art. 49 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Charte des droits et libertes de la personne) provides that any unlawful interference with a right or freedom recognized by the Charter confers on the victim the right to obtain the cessation of the interference and reparation for the resulting damage. In cases of unlawful and intentional interference, the court may award punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Canada clarified the scope of this recourse in Beliveau St-Jacques c. FEESP, holding that the Quebec Charter does not create an autonomous regime of civil liability. Art. 49 is integrated within the general framework of civil liability under the general law: the victim must demonstrate a fault (the unlawful interference), damage, and a causal link in accordance with the principles of art. 1457 CCQ. The unlawful interference corresponds to the unjustified violation of a right protected by the Charter.

In Curateur public c. S.N.E. Hopital St-Ferdinand, the Court defined more precisely the contours of intentional interference. The intentional character requires that the perpetrator have willed the consequences of his or her act or, at the very least, have acted with knowledge of the immediate and certain injurious consequences of his or her conduct. The distinction between the will to perform the faulty act and the will to produce the harmful result applies with the same rigour as in the context of intentional fault under the general law. Simple negligence, even gross negligence, does not suffice to qualify the interference as intentional for the purposes of art. 49.

Causation

Physical Causation and Legal Causation

The causal link comprises two complementary dimensions. Physical causation (causalite physique) seeks to determine the material cause of the harmful event: which phenomenon, act, or omission produced the result observed? Legal causation (causalite juridique) consists of connecting the conduct of an identified person to the harmful event so as to derive from it an obligation of reparation.

Art. 1607 CCQ provides the rule that the debtor is liable only for damages that are a direct and immediate consequence of his or her fault. The causal link must be proven by the plaintiff on a balance of probabilities. Direct proof is not always available. Where it is lacking, the plaintiff may resort to presumptions of fact, provided they are serious, precise, and concordant (art. 2849 CCQ). Proof requires more than a mere possibility: the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's fault constitutes the probable cause of the damage, among the various possible causes. The decision in Laferriere c. Lawson recalls that the inability to establish the causal link with respect to the full damage does not preclude recognition of causation for a lesser injury.

Theories of Causation

Quebec doctrine recognizes several theories of causation, three of which occupy a central place in legal analysis.

Proximate cause (causa proxima). Under this approach, only the last event in the causal chain is retained as the legal cause of the damage. This theory, narrow in application, limits liability to the agent closest to the harmful result. Quebec courts consider it too reductive for most situations and rarely apply it in isolation.

Equivalence of conditions (sine qua non). This theory treats as a cause of the damage any factor without which the harm would not have occurred. If the alleged fault is mentally removed and the damage disappears, that fault is a condition sine qua non of the result. The drawback lies in the potentially unlimited extension of the causal chain, since very remote causes may be attributed a causal role.

Adequate causation. The theory favoured by Quebec doctrine and jurisprudence retains as the legal cause the factor that, in a meaningful way, increased the likelihood of the damage occurring. This approach identifies the causa causans: the generative cause, the one whose intervention truly produced the result, as opposed to pre-existing or concomitant conditions. Adequate causation integrates a criterion of reasonable foreseeability: the cause retained is the one that a reasonable person could have anticipated as producing the type of damage that occurred. Quebec courts use this theory as the principal framework of analysis, particularly where several potential authors are involved.

The Pragmatic Approach of the Courts

Quebec courts adopt a pragmatic approach that combines elements from the various theories depending on the circumstances of the case.

On the level of physical causation, courts frequently rely on expert evidence and presumptions of fact. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged cause is the most probable among the possible causes. The judge proceeds by eliminating hypotheses to isolate the probable cause, guided by findings of fact and expert reports. Absolute certainty is not required, but mere hypothesis does not suffice. The decisions in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. c. Sanborn's Motor Express, Longpre c. Theriault, and St-Cyr c. Ville de Boucherville illustrate this evidentiary approach.

On the level of legal causation, courts accept the coexistence of multiple causal factors. Where the faults of several persons contributed to the same damage, liability is apportioned in proportion to the gravity of the respective faults (art. 1478 CCQ).

The breaking of the causal chain (novus actus interveniens). A new, unforeseeable, and independent event may break the chain of causation. In Beaudoin c. T.W. Hand Fireworks, the courts recognized that the intervention of a new and autonomous act, of sufficient gravity, may interrupt the link between the original fault and the final damage. Gross fault of the victim or of a third party is one of the factors capable of breaking this link. In Dubois c. Dubois, the Court held that the intervention of a third party did not suffice, in the circumstances, to break the causal link where the result remained within the foreseeable course of events. The distinction between a gross fault that breaks the chain and a concomitant fault that leads only to apportionment depends on the relative gravity of the faults and the foreseeability of the final result.

The presumption of causation. Where the defendant has violated an elementary standard of prudence and the accident that occurs corresponds to the type of damage that the standard was intended to prevent, the courts presume the causal link. The Supreme Court of Canada established this principle in Morin c. Blais: proof of the violation of a fundamental rule of prudence shifts the burden of proof regarding causation to the defendant. The defendant must then demonstrate that his or her fault did not cause the damage, or that the damage would have occurred in the same manner in the absence of the fault.

Apportionment of liability. Where the faults of the author of the damage and of the victim are of comparable gravity, art. 1478 CCQ provides for the apportionment of the indemnity in proportion to the gravity of each fault. The court has discretion in evaluating the respective proportions. This rule of apportionment applies both to faults of the victim and to concurrent faults of co-authors.

Practice Checklist

Capacity for discernment

• Verify whether the author of the damage was endowed with reason at the time of the facts (art. 1457 para. 2 CCQ).
• If the author is a minor or an incapacitated adult, direct the analysis toward the special custodial regimes (arts. 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462 CCQ).
• Verify whether the victim is endowed with reason for the purposes of art. 1478 para. 2 CCQ.

Proof of fault

• Identify the applicable standard of conduct (statute, regulation, usage, professional standard, jurisprudential standard).
• Compare the defendant's conduct to the standard of the reasonable, prudent, and diligent person placed in the same circumstances.
• Distinguish fault from non-faulty error.
• Qualify the fault: act or omission, intentional or involuntary, light, gross, or intentional.
• Where a legislative or regulatory norm has been violated, verify whether that norm was aimed at protecting the category of persons to which the victim belongs.
• Verify whether compliance with a norm has been invoked as a defence and assess whether the conduct remained reasonable (Roberge c. Bolduc).

Special applications

• Abuse of rights: establish malicious intent or the objectively excessive character of the exercise of the right (arts. 6, 7 CCQ); verify the availability of punitive damages (art. 1621 para. 1 CCQ).
• Legal person: identify whether the fault originates from an organ of the legal person or from a director in his or her personal capacity (arts. 311, 322, 2157, 2160 CCQ).
• State and public administration: distinguish the policy sphere (relative immunity) from the operational sphere (ordinary regime); verify the existence of an express legislative immunity (art. 1376 CCQ; Crown Liability and Proceedings Act).
• Neighbourhood disturbances: establish the neighbourhood relationship and the abnormal character of the inconvenience (art. 976 CCQ); no proof of fault required; evaluate the possibility of cumulation with art. 1457 CCQ.
• Charter: demonstrate unlawful interference with a protected right (art. 49 Charter); for punitive damages, prove the intentional character within the meaning of Curateur public c. S.N.E. Hopital St-Ferdinand.

Causation

• Establish physical causation between the event and the damage.
• Connect the defendant's conduct juridically to the damage according to the theory of adequate causation.
• Demonstrate that the fault is the probable cause (not a merely possible cause) of the damage (art. 2849 CCQ).
• Where an elementary standard of prudence has been violated, invoke the presumption of causation (Morin c. Blais).
• Anticipate arguments for breaking the causal link: novus actus interveniens, superior force (art. 1470 CCQ), fault of the victim (art. 1478 CCQ).
• Where concurrent faults are present, prepare the analysis of apportionment of liability (art. 1478 CCQ).

Glossary

• Abuse of rights / Abus de droit: the exercise of a right with the intent to harm another or in an excessive and unreasonable manner (arts. 6, 7 CCQ).
• Adequate causation / Causalite adequate: the theory retaining as the legal cause the factor that meaningfully increased the likelihood of the damage; the causa causans.
• Legal causation / Causalite juridique: the connecting of a person's conduct to a harmful event for the purposes of civil liability.
• Physical causation / Causalite physique: the determination of the material cause of a harmful event.
• Endowed with reason / Doue de raison: a person possessing the capacity for discernment, a prerequisite for the attribution of personal fault (art. 1457 para. 2 CCQ).
• Fault / Faute: a failure to meet a standard of conduct, assessed objectively according to the criterion of the reasonable, prudent, and diligent person.
• Intentional fault / Faute intentionnelle: conduct undertaken with the will to cause damage; presupposes knowledge of the injurious consequences.
• Gross fault / Faute lourde: insouciance, imprudence, or gross negligence (art. 1474 CCQ).
• Superior force / Force majeure: an external, irresistible, and unforeseeable event releasing the debtor from his or her obligation (art. 1470 CCQ).
• Causal link / Lien de causalite: the direct and immediate connection between the fault and the damage, proven on a balance of probabilities.
• Novus actus interveniens / Fait nouveau: a new, unforeseeable, and autonomous event breaking the chain of causation between the initial fault and the damage.
• Reasonable person / Personne raisonnable: the abstract reference standard replacing the former "bonus pater familias" for the objective evaluation of fault.
• Damage / Prejudice: bodily, moral, or material injury suffered by the victim, giving rise to reparation (art. 1457 CCQ).
• Presumption of causation / Presomption de causalite: the jurisprudential rule whereby the violation of an elementary standard of prudence gives rise to a presumption of the causal link (Morin c. Blais).
• Neighbourhood disturbances / Troubles de voisinage: abnormal or excessive inconveniences between neighbours, giving rise to a no-fault liability regime (art. 976 CCQ).

References and Further Reading

• Civil Code of Quebec: arts. 6, 7, 164 para. 2, 311, 321, 322, 976, 1376, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1470, 1471, 1474, 1478, 1479, 1480, 1481, 1607, 1621, 2130, 2142, 2148, 2157, 2159, 2160, 2849.
• Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Quebec): art. 49.
• Crown Liability and Proceedings Act (federal): arts. 3, 4, 10, 11, 16-20.
• Jurisprudence cited: Morin c. Blais; Roberge c. Bolduc; Curateur public c. S.N.E. Hopital St-Ferdinand; Ouellet c. Cloutier; Beliveau St-Jacques c. FEESP; Beaudoin c. T.W. Hand Fireworks; Dubois c. Dubois; Mulco Inc. c. La Garantie; Hydro-Quebec c. Girard; Kruger Inc. c. R.A. Fournier; Deguire Avenue Ltd. c. Adler; Longpre c. Theriault; St-Cyr c. Ville de Boucherville; Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. c. Sanborn's Motor Express; L'Oeuvre des Terrains de jeux de Quebec c. Cannon; Laferriere c. Lawson.
• Doctrine: Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Patrice Deslauriers, and Benoit Moore, La responsabilite civile; Tancelin, Maurice, Des obligations en droit mixte du Quebec; Karim, Vincent, Les obligations; Crepeau, Paul-Andre, L'intensite de l'obligation juridique.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Quebec civil law may evolve through legislation and judicial interpretation. For advice on a specific situation, consult a qualified Quebec lawyer or notary.