L'absorption des recours pour atteinte illicite prévus à la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne par le régime de responsabilité civile de droit commun
In a sequence of judgments rendered since 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada assimilates liability action for "unlawful interference" under Article 49 of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to civil liability action under the general law. The Supreme Court said on this occasion that for there to be unlawful infringement, violation of the right has to be qualified as faulty. This qualification may be demonstrated if a person’s conduct violates "a standard of conduct considered reasonable in the circumstances under the general law" or if the person violates "in the case of certain protected rights, a standard set out in the Charter itself". In the first case, the notion of fault, as understood by the Supreme Court of Canada, absorbs the notion of "unlawful interference", while in the second case it dissolves in "unlawful interference" (which makes an objective fault in abstracto). However, in the second case, the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in St. Lawrence Cement, rendered in 2008, said that the fault is an obligation of means, which is assessed according to the criteria of prudent and diligent person. Thus, it is not obligation of result. It would be now difficult to reconcile this characterization of the fault with the policy adopted by the Supreme Court's in the matter of the Charter. Since the text of the Charter itself contains the substantive and formal conditions under which it is possible to determine the existence of an "unlawful interference", it would be desirable that the method of convergence of actions between the Code and the Charter should be abandoned in favor of the recognition of the material autonomy of the Charter to ensure consistency of law, which would also mean not to distort the concept of fault. Moreover, while the Supreme Court established unlawful interference has no prejudice in itself, the author attempts to demonstrate that the violation of a right is still an inherent prejudice that the law must recognize.
Charte Charter Interference Unlawful Fault Action Liability Damage Prejudice Civil