Executive Summary: Key legal and evidentiary issues

• Whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear claims for damages related to Veterans Affairs Canada decisions

• The applicability of section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act as a bar to the action

• Whether the claim was time-barred under the three-year prescription period of the Civil Code of Quebec

• Whether any evidence justified suspension of prescription under article 2904 C.C.Q.

• The sufficiency of the appellant’s allegations to overcome the motion to dismiss the appeal

• Whether the Court of Appeal could grant permission to adduce fresh evidence on appeal

Facts of the case

Éric D’Argy, a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, brought an action for injunctive relief and damages against the Attorney General of Canada, claiming that Veterans Affairs Canada and the Bureau of Pension Advocate had delayed or refused certain benefits and mistreated him. He alleged that these actions caused him serious psychological harm and financial loss, including the forced sale of his home and the deterioration of his family situation. His original claim sought orders for payment of benefits, medical treatment at his preferred location, and compensation of $500,000 per year since 2014.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an application to dismiss the action, arguing that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to order benefits, that the action was barred by the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and that the claim was prescribed. The Superior Court agreed and dismissed the action. D’Argy appealed, narrowing his claim to damages caused by the alleged improper cancellation of his rehabilitation program in 2014.

Outcome

The Quebec Court of Appeal granted the application to dismiss the appeal. The Court found that even if jurisdiction and statutory immunity issues were set aside, the claim was clearly prescribed. The relevant events occurred in 2014, and the three-year prescription period expired in 2017. No sufficient allegations were made to suspend prescription. The appellant belatedly relied on article 2904 C.C.Q. and submitted medical reports, but these did not establish that it was impossible for him to act within the relevant time frame. The Court ruled the appeal had no reasonable chance of success and dismissed it at the preliminary stage, without costs.