A-569-80
Jean-Guy Mérineau (Appellant) (Plaintiff)
v.
The Queen (Respondent) (Defendant)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and
Lalande D.J.—Quebec City, November 25, 1981.
Crown — Torts — Appeal dismissed from Trial Judge's
decision that the appellant is entitled to a pension because the
aggravation of his disease was directly connected to his mili
tary service — Pension Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-7, s. 12(2).
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
François Pelletier for appellant (plaintiff).
Pierre Morin and Jean-Marc Aubry for
respondent (defendant).
SOLICITORS:
Vézina, Pouliot, L'Ecuyer & Morin, Sainte-
Foy, for appellant (plaintiff).
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent (defendant).
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
PRATTE J. (dissenting): I am not in agreement
with my two brother Judges. In my opinion, the
Trial Judge' was incorrect in his finding that the
disability affecting the appellant is directly con
nected to his military service.
That disability is the result of the negligence of
an employee of a military hospital in which the
appellant was treated. It cannot in any way be
connected with any activity by the appellant in his
capacity as a serviceman. The only connection
between the disability and the appellant's military
service derives from the fact that it was caused by
a negligent act committed in a hospital where the
plaintiff was entitled to free treatment because he
was a serviceman, and also from the fact that he
was hospitalized in this institution at the sugges
tion of a military physician. There is certainly a
link between the damage for which the appellant is
1
1198111 F.C. 420.
claiming compensation and his status as a service
man, but I think that link is too tenuous for one to
say that the damage is directly connected to his
military service.
I therefore feel that the decision of the Trial
Judge should be set aside. Rendering the judgment
which ought to have been rendered at the trial
level, I would hold that the respondent should pay
the appellant the sum of $120,975 in damages,
with interest from the date of service, together
with the additional indemnity computed in accord
ance with the last paragraph of article 1056c of
the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec. The
respondent should pay the appellant's costs at trial
and on appeal.
* * *
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment delivered orally by
LALANDE D.J.: I concur with Marceau J. in the
view that the appellant is entitled to a pension
because the aggravation of his disease was directly
connected to his military service within the mean
ing of subsection 12(2) of the Pension Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. P-7.
The circumstances which led the appellant to
receive the blood transfusion during which he was
the victim of a negligent act are set forth in the
trial level judgment, and it is not necessary to
repeat them. In my view, the act causing injury in
the case at bar is directly connected to the appel
lant's military service.
In short, for the reasons stated by the Trial
Judge, I would dismiss the appeal, with costs if
requested by the respondent.
* * *
LE DAIN J. concurred.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.