2020 QCCQ 6783, 2020 QCCQ 6783

Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions c. Remorquage JJ 2018 inc. 2020 QCCQ 6783 JL4783 QUÉBEC COURT CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF BEDFORD CITY OF GRANBY «Criminal and penal division» N° : 460-61-018080-190 DATE : November 16, 2020 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE MADAM TANYA LAROCQUE, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________ DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL AND PENAL PROSECUTIONS Prosecutor c. REMORQUAGE J.J. 2018 INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On the 24 th of April 2019, a highway controller intercepts the defendant’s tow truck to inspect it. He sees that six bolts on the rear right wheel are loose.

Regulation provides that a wheel fastener that is missing, cracked, broken or not securely mounted is a major defect [1] . [ 2 ] As the owner of the heavy vehicle, the defendant is accused of letting his vehicle circulate while having a major defect [2] . [ 3 ] The highway controller takes pictures of the bolts of the rear right wheel and the ones of the rear left wheel. There is a space between the bolt and the wheel on the right side of the vehicle.

There is no such space between the bolt and the wheel on the left side of the vehicle. [ 4 ] The infraction is committed as soon as one of the bolts is not securely mounted on the wheel. The infraction remains even if the defendant fixes the problem before the towing is allowed back on the road. [ 5 ] This infraction is one of strict responsibility.

Therefore, the defendant can be exonerated if he demonstrates that he has taken all the necessary measures to prevent the commission of the infraction. [ 6 ] To determine the defendant’s due diligence, the Court must compare his actions with the actions of a person in the same sector of specialised activity [3] . [ 7 ] A tow truck driver has a legal obligation to do a circle check of his vehicle [4] to identify the vehicle’s defects appearing on the applicable lists of defects provided for in Schedules III to V of the Regulation.

The defendant also employs a mechanic that checks the trucks weekly. [ 8 ] The defendant argues that they must trust their drivers to do their jobs and they can only repair what they know is broken on a truck. [ 9 ] In Québec (Procureur général) c. Dépan-escompte Couche-Tard inc. [5] , the judge enumerates the criteria the Courts must consider when an employer is prosecuted for the actions of his employee : 1. The presence of clear directives that are appropriately given to the employees by an effective way of communication; 2.

Implementing application systems, control and supervision of the directors and employees; 3. The existence of a specialized training program and the training of the staff; 4. The use and maintenance of adequate equipment; 5. […] 6. The possibility of graduated administrative sanctions to incite the employees to respect the Law and directives.

[ 10 ] The defendant provides no proof relating to any of the aforementioned criteria. The defendant must put in place a system that insures their employees will follow the law and directives given to them by the defendant. [ 11 ] The court does not demand that the defendant follows each employee to look over their shoulders all day. However, totally trusting an employee, without supervision or absence of control, does not constitute due diligence.

Doing so is willful blindness that cannot serve as an excuse or a type of defense [6] . [ 12 ] The prosecution has proven, without a reasonable doubt, the commission of the infraction.

The defendant has not demonstrated due diligence. [ 13 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 14 ] DECLARES the defendant guilty of the infraction; [ 15 ] CONDEMS the defendant to pay a fine of $700, with costs, in the next ninety (90) days of the present judgement. __________________________________ TANYA LAROCQUE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE and JUDGE Me Marie-Christine Simard Attorney for the prosecution Stephen Lachapelle is representing the defendant and he’s not assisted by an attorney. Date of hearing: November 12, 2020