Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Civil procedure — New evidence — Revocation of judgment — Whether Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A 25, should be interpreted broadly and liberally in all respects and especially where eligibility for benefits is in issue — Whether public body like Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec has obligation to disclose entire content of its records concerning beneficiary — If so, whether court has obligation to consider this aspect of case — Whether court has obligation to render new decision in view of fact that public body concealed important information — Whether court has obligation to consider all evidence adduced — Whether court authorized to substitute its opinion for facts before it.

On February 25, 2003, the applicant Jagdish Nanda was involved in an automobile accident in which he sustained bodily injuries. Following the accident, the applicant applied to the respondent Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec (“SAAQ”) for compensation corresponding to his condition under Title II of the Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A 25. At the time of the automobile accident, the applicant was receiving compensation from the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (“CSST”) for an industrial accident he had had on June 12, 2002. The accidental event was accepted by the SAAQ, which paid the applicant compensation for his injuries. Starting in August 2003, the applicant submitted several medical documents to the SAAQ showing that he had a macular degeneration condition and Berlin’s oedema resulting in legal blindness. On April 6, 2006, the SAAQ and the CSST made a joint decision in which the SAAQ found that there was no causal connection between the alleged condition and the accident.