[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-307837-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-307837-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","gilles-gargantiel-factum-of-the-appellant","GILLES GARGANTIEL - FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT","","Factum of the Appellant Gilles Gargantiel filed before the Supreme Court of Canada in an appeal from the Québec Court of Appeal. The submission addresses whether article 83.57 of Québec’s Automobile Insurance Act bars or provides civil immunity to prevent an accident victim from suing a negligent third party whose intervening negligence causes new or aggravated injuries. It also addresses whether accepting indemnity payments from the SAAQ automatically renounces civil recourse, and includes submissions on costs, requested orders, and supporting authorities.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/gilles-gargantiel-factum-of-the-appellant/307837/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/gilles-gargantiel-factum-of-the-appellant/307837.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Jake","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",15,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What issue does article 83.57 of Québec’s Automobile Insurance Act raise in this appeal?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Whether article 83.57 creates a bar or civil immunity that prevents an accident victim from suing a third party whose intervening act of negligence causes new or additional injuries after the accident.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Does accepting indemnity payments from the SAAQ automatically renounce civil recourse against a negligent third party?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The factum addresses whether cashing indemnity payments received from the SAAQ means the accident victim has automatically renounced any civil recourse against a third party.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What does the factum include besides the legal arguments?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It includes submissions respecting costs, orders requested, and a table of authorities and statutory provisions.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},307837,1789856093,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962084928904,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","File 36388  \nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA  \n(ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUÉBEC)  \nBETWEEN:  \nGILLES GARGANTIEL  \nAPPELLANT  \n(Appellant)  \n-and  \nPROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC  \nRESPONDENT  \n(Respondent)  \n-and  \nSOCIÉTÉ DE L'ASSURANCE AUTOMOBILE DU QUÉBEC  \nINTERVENER  \n(Mise en cause)  \nFACTUM OF THE APPELLANT  \nFILED BY THE APPELLANT, GILLES GARGANTIEL PURSUANT TO RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA  \nCounsel for the Appellant:  \nANDREW KLIGER & LEONARD KLIGER LEONARD KLIGER, AVOCAT  \n1255, rue du Square-Phillips Bureau 808  \nMontréal, Quebec H3B 3G1  \nTel: (514) 281-1720  \nFax: (514) 281-0678  \nE-mail: [lkliger@leonardkliger.com](lkliger@leonardkliger.com)  \n[akliger@leonardkliger.com](akliger@leonardkliger.com)  \nAgent for Counsel for the Appellant:  \nMOIRA DILLON  \nSUPREME LAW GROUP  \n900-275 Slater Street Ottawa, ON K1P 5H9  \nTel: (613) 691-1224  \nFax: (613) 691-1338  \n[Email: mdillon@supremelawgroup.ca](Email: mdillon@supremelawgroup.ca)  \nCounsel for the Respondent:  \nLOUISE COMTOIS & ALEXANDRA HODDER PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC  \nDirection générale des affaires juridiques et législatifs 1, rue Notre-Dame Est-8ième étage  \nMontréal, Quebec H2Y 1B6  \nTel: (514) 393-2336 Ext: 51615  \nFax: (514) 873-7074  \nE-mail: [louise.comtois@justice.gouv.qc.ca](louise.comtois@justice.gouv.qc.ca)  \nAgent for Counsel for the Respondent:  \nSYLVIE L'ABBÉ NOËL & ASSOCIÉS  \n111 rue Champlain  \nGatineau, Quebec J8X 3R1  \nTel: (819) 771-7393  \nFax: (819) 771-5397  \nE-mail: [s.labbe@noelassocies.com](s.labbe@noelassocies.com)  \nCounsel for the Intervener:  \nMARTIN BOISVERT & JULIEN GAUDET-LACHAPELLE RAICHE PINEAULT TOUCHETTE  \n800, tour de la Place Victoria 31ième étage  \nMontréal, Quebec H4Z 1L6  \nTel: (514) 954-7710  \nFax: (514) 873-4492  \n[E-mail: martin.boisvert@saaq.gouv.qc.ca](E-mail: martin.boisvert@saaq.gouv.qc.ca)  \nAgent for Counsel for the Intervener:  \nSALLY GOMERY  \nNORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT  \n1500-45 O'Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1A4  \nTel: (613) 780-8604  \nFax: (613) 230-5459  \nE-mail: [sally.gomery@nortonrose.com](sally.gomery@nortonrose.com)  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPage  \nAPPELLANT’S FACTUM  \nPART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………..1  \ni. Overview …………………………..1  \nii. Background facts …………………………..4  \niii. Judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec …………………………..6  \niv. Judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal …………………………..6  \nPART II: POINTS IN ISSUE …………………………..7  \nPART III: ARGUMENT …………………………..7  \nA. Does article 83.57 of the Act create a bar or civil immunity preventing an automobile accident victim in Quebec from suing a third party who commits an  \nintervening act of negligence following the accident which causes new or aggravated injuries to the accident victim? …………………………..7  \ni. Erroneous application of article 83.57 and the theory of novus actus interveniens …………………………..7  \nii. The comparison of the Act and jurisprudence in other provinces ………………………….13  \niii. No requirement of a complete rupture of a causal link ………………………….17  \niv. Legislative intent of the no-fault scheme as it relates to third party immunity ………………………….21  \nv. Erroneous application of the Supreme Court judgment Rossy ………………………….24  \nvi. Erroneous interpretation of the legal principles in the PGQ’s jurisprudence ………………………….25  \nvii. Tacit endorsement by this Court of the new act of negligence theory ………………………….27  \nB. In the event an automobile accident victim in Quebec makes a claim to the SAAQ and cashes indemnity payments received from the SAAQ, does such action  \nmean that the accident victim has automatically renounced to any civil recourse that he or she may have had against a third party? ………………………….28  \ni. Inapplicability of Boulanger and other cases cited by the PGQ ………………………….28  \nii. The impossible burden the Boulanger concept of renunciation places on automobile accident victims ………………………….34  \niii. Erroneous application of article 83.50 of the Act ………………………….35  \niv. Error in law by not accepting Garga","cbCaisNGdFRJ6z42","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisNGdFRJ6z42","pdf",463444,64,"English","# TABLE OF CONTENTS\n## APPELLANT’S FACTUM\n## PART I: OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS\n## PART II: POINTS IN ISSUE\n## PART III: ARGUMENT\n## PART IV: SUBMISSION RESPECTING COSTS\n## PART V: ORDERS REQUESTED\n## PART VI : TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n## PART VII: STATUTORY PROVISIONS","[{\"question\":\"What issue does article 83.57 of Québec’s Automobile Insurance Act raise in this appeal?\",\"answer\":\"Whether article 83.57 creates a bar or civil immunity that prevents an accident victim from suing a third party whose intervening act of negligence causes new or additional injuries after the accident.\"},{\"question\":\"Does accepting indemnity payments from the SAAQ automatically renounce civil recourse against a negligent third party?\",\"answer\":\"The factum addresses whether cashing indemnity payments received from the SAAQ means the accident victim has automatically renounced any civil recourse against a third party.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the factum include besides the legal arguments?\",\"answer\":\"It includes submissions respecting costs, orders requested, and a table of authorities and statutory provisions.\"}]","GILLES GARGANTIEL - FACTUM OF THE APPELLANT | PDF",161]