Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Michel Bibaud has instituted an action in the Superior Court of Quebec against the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec (RAMQ) and the Société de l’assurance-automobile du Québec (SAAQ). He was not entitled to the services of a Legal Aid lawyer and the family could not afford the services of a private lawyer.

The Appellant’s spouse, Mireille Boisvert, filed a declaration of voluntary intervention pursuant to article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure R.S.Q. ch. C- 25. She alleged in her declaration that her spouse Michel Bibaud was physically and psychologically unable to represent himself. She submitted, to support her declaration, a certificate from her spouse’s physician and reports from his physiotherapist and his occupational therapist to the effect that the Appellant suffers from a chronic post-operative pain syndrome, is given cannabis as part of his treatment and is unable, on account of his clinical condition, to represent himself in court proceedings. She has also submitted a notarial document in which Michel Bibaud appoints Mireille Boisvert as his mandatary, grants her a general mandate and a mandate in anticipation of his incapacity. Alleging that she has taken charge of the family so as to protect its interests, Mrs. Boisvert asked the Superior Court for the authorization to plead on behalf of her spouse and for the right to file any procedure or claim which may be required in his case. She asked for the authorization to help, assist and represent the Appellant.

On October 28, 2002, the Superior Court denied her intervention request on the grounds that the sole purpose of the intervention was to aid, assist and represent the Appellant as such and that none of the allegations of her declaration made any reference to a claim she might have in her own right. The trial judge invoked article 62 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reserves to advocates the right to act as attorney before the courts, and article 128 of the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, R.S.Q., ch, B-1, which specifies the acts which are in the exclusive prerogative of an advocate, to support his conclusion. Mrs. Boisvert filed with the Court of Appeal a motion for leave to appeal. Her grounds were in substance identical to the ones she had already raised in her declaration. On November 8, 2002, Dalphond J.A. denied her leave to appeal, stating that the trial court judgment was, in his opinion, well-founded.