Can Slipping on Ice While Clearing Snow From a Car be Considered a Car Accident

Come June, having made it through the long winter months, most Quebecers would rather discuss anything other than clearing snow.

The Court of Appeal, however, does not have that luxury.

On June 4^th, the Court of Appeal released judgments in two companion cases determining whether slipping and falling while clearing snow from a car is an automobile accident within the meaning of the Automobile Insurance Act, CQLR, c. A-25, “the Act”.

It is, declares the Court of Appeal, reversing a previously continuous line of jurisprudence to the contrary.

The facts are simple and similar in both cases.

In Hotel Motel Manic c. Pitre, 2018 QCCA 895, the Respondent slipped and fell while clearing snow from her car in an icy parking lot after an office Christmas party.

The Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec, “SAAQ”, refused Respondent’s claim for compensation. The SAAQ’s decision was confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal of Québec.

Similarly, in Vaillancourt c. BlackBurn, 2018 QCCA 896, the Respondent slipped and fell while clearing snow from his car. His claim was also denied by the SAAQ.

Both Respondents filed actions for damages against the Appellants who owned the parking lots where the falls took place. The Appellants filed Motions to Dismiss, pleading that the claims fell within the SAAQ’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Both first instance judges dismissed the Motions to Dismiss, holding that clearing snow from a stationary vehicle did not constitute use of an automobile and that clearing snow was an act of maintenance, which is excluded from the Act’s application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals. First, it held that the bodily injuries sustained by the Respondents were caused by the use of an automobile. Second, the Court ruled that that the maintenance exception did not apply.

Use of an Automobile

The provision at issue is s.1 of the Act, and more precisely, the definition of “damage caused by an automobile”:

1. In this Act, unless otherwise indicated by the context,
“accident” means any event in which damage is caused by an automobile;
“automobile” means any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular force and adapted for transportation on public highways but not on rails;
“damage caused by an automobile” means any damage caused by an automobile, by the use thereof or by the load carried in or on an automobile, including damage caused by a trailer used with an automobile, but excluding damage caused by the autonomous act of an animal that is part of the load and injury or damage caused to a person or property by reason of an action performed by that person in connection with the maintenance, repair, alteration or improvement of an automobile;
[…]

The Court of Appeal notes that the Act is remedial legislation and should therefore be interpreted in a large and liberal manner. The case law has established that the vehicle need not to be in motion and the victim need not to be aboard the vehicle, nor be behind the steering wheel for the damage to be caused by the use of the automobile within the meaning of the Act.

The Court of Appeal goes on to conclude that snow removal is intimately related to the use of the vehicle. When the vehicle is covered in snow, its use is dependant on that snow being cleared, notably for safety considerations pursuant to the Highway Safety Code. The Court therefore holds that the Respondents’ injuries were caused by the use of an automobile and were covered by the Act.

Maintenance Exception

The Court of Appeal then rejects the SAAQ’s subsidiary argument that snow removal falls under the maintenance exception. The Court declares that the exception should be interpreted restrictively, given the Act’s remedial purpose.

Looking closely at the definition of “maintenance” the Court concludes that maintenance means looking after or keeping the vehicle in good condition with periodic actions of a lasting nature, such as changing the oil and checking and replacing the brakes. According to the Court, snow removal, which has no lasting effects, differs from these tasks and is therefore not part of the exception.

Invoking the latin maxim noscitur a sociis, i.e. that the meaning of a word can be ascertained from accompanying words, the Court finds support for its conclusion in the terms that follow the word “maintenance” in s. 1 of the Act such as repair, alteration or improvement of an automobile, all of which, unlike snow removal, have lasting effects.

Thus, the Court of Appeal decides that the SAAQ should compensate the Respondents for the bodily injuries they sustained.

These cases provide a useful illustration of a large, liberal, and perhaps even creative construction of remedial and social legislation. Though the conclusion that a slip and fall near a stationary vehicle is a car accident within the meaning of the Act may seem surprising, the Court’s broad approach is consistent with Quebec’s societal choice of a no-fault regime which aims to ensure that as many victims as possible receive compensation through a viable public scheme.