Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Émilie Gervais Tremblay, a nurse, claimed $15,306 from the Procureur général du Québec for negligent misinformation provided by a Ministry representative regarding her parental insurance benefits.
• Central to the dispute was whether a Ministry agent failed to inform the applicant of the exception under article 31.1 of the RALAP, which allows consecutive-pregnancy claimants to use their prior benefit reference period.
• A Ministry system note dated December 17, 2020, confirmed the applicant raised the prospect of a future pregnancy and potential part-time work, giving the agent sufficient information to trigger the article 31.1 exception.
• Negligence was established: the Ministry agent, Nathalie Pratte, admitted she had no recollection of the call and could not confirm that nothing in the conversation pointed toward the need to explain the exception.
• Because the applicant was not informed of the exception, she worked part-time during her second preventive withdrawal, resulting in a benefit loss of $13,306.14.
• The court awarded Gervais Tremblay a total of $15,306.14 — comprising $13,306.14 in damages and $2,000 in moral damages — plus legal interest and costs of justice.

Facts of the case

Émilie Gervais Tremblay, a bachelor-level nurse, brought a claim against the Procureur général du Québec, acting on behalf of the Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale (the Ministry), which administers the Régime québécois d'assurance parentale (RQAP). Following her first pregnancy in September 2019, she was placed on preventive withdrawal. After the birth of her first child, she received RQAP benefits from May 3, 2020 to April 17, 2021, with gross weekly maternity benefits established at $1,031.97, representing 70% of her average weekly insurable income. Toward the end of that first parental leave, she learned in April 2021 that she was pregnant again and returned to work on April 22, 2021. On June 13, 2021, she was placed on a second preventive withdrawal due to the nature of her work. During that second withdrawal, she worked part-time — approximately one shift per week for 22 weeks. After the birth of her second child, her application for parental benefits was accepted on January 21, 2022, but her gross weekly benefits had been reduced dramatically, to $241.08 for a period of 18 weeks (January 16, 2022 to May 21, 2022). The parties agreed at trial that the resulting loss in benefits totalled $13,306.14.

Statutory framework and provision at issue

The RQAP, established under the Loi sur l'assurance parentale (RLRQ, c. A-29.001), provides maternity benefits equal to 70–75% of a claimant's average weekly income (RHM), calculated over the 26 insurable weeks within a 52-week reference period (extendable to 104 weeks). Article 31.1 of the Règlement sur l'assurance parentale (RALAP) provides a key exception: on request, a claimant whose consecutive pregnancies prevented her from accumulating more than 15 weeks of insurable income — for qualifying reasons, including receiving RQAP or employment insurance benefits, or receiving LSST compensation due to preventive withdrawal — may use the reference period from her prior claim rather than the current one. The applicant contended that had she been informed of this exception, she would have limited her part-time work to fewer than 15 weeks during her second preventive withdrawal, thereby preserving the higher benefit level established during her first maternity leave.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied the framework for public authority liability for negligent information, as cited from Langevin c. Procureur général du Québec (2005 CanLII 32321), drawing on the criteria set out by Professor Denis Lemieux: (1) the information must have been given by an official acting within their assigned duties; (2) it must have been provided negligently and been either clearly erroneous or sufficiently ambiguous to mislead the recipient; and (3) the claimant must have reasonably relied on the information to their detriment. The court found all three criteria met. The Ministry's own system note from December 17, 2020, recorded by agent Nathalie Pratte, confirmed that the applicant had raised the possibility of a future pregnancy and had asked about the impact of potential part-time work on her future benefits. The court held that this information was sufficient to trigger the duty to explain the article 31.1 exception. Agent Pratte testified that she would not raise article 31.1 unless a client's questions directed her there, and that the elements of the call did not, in her view, point toward that provision. In cross-examination, however, she acknowledged she had no recollection of the call, undermining her position. The court found it was manifestly negligent not to have referred the applicant to article 31.1 given the information she had provided, and that Pratte, as a parental insurance assistance agent, had both the authority and the duty to provide that information. The absence of an expected due date (DPA) at the time of the call did not change this finding, as the court accepted that such information could be provided in advance of a confirmed pregnancy. The court further found it was reasonable for the applicant to rely on the agent's guidance, given the agent's official role. The applicant's credibility was not challenged, and telephone records confirmed she had contacted the Ministry on multiple occasions.

Ruling and outcome

The court allowed the claim in full. Émilie Gervais Tremblay was the successful party. The Procureur général du Québec was ordered to pay her $13,306.14 in damages and interest, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from January 16, 2022. The court also awarded $2,000 in moral damages for troubles, inconvenience, and the disruption to her maternity leave caused by the Ministry's error, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity from the date of service, March 14, 2024. The total monetary award was $15,306.14, with all costs of justice assessed against the defendant.