June 15, 2005 - 2 — Le Protecteur du citoyen

35th Annual Report of the Protecteur du citoyen (2004–2005)

“This could happen to YOU”

A few examples

1. Mistake sent him to jail

When he infringed on the Highway Safety Code, a citizen fined $30. When he failed to pay his fine on time, authorities issued a remand warrant. Two months later, he was stopped by a police officer and informed of the warrant. He agreed to pay the fine on the spot, settling the situation. But he was stopped again by police officers eight months later and informed again that there was a remand warrant against him. This time, he was incarcerated for two days. But the warrant was the same one he had paid the fine for—it had mistakenly not been cancelled. The Protecteur du citoyen contacted both Ministère de la Justice and the Ministère de la Sécurité publique with regard to the Sûreté du Québec’s actions and demanded that the man be compensated. Each one blamed the other, with the Ministère de la Justice claiming that legally, it did not have to compensate the citizen because he did not apply to the court by the required deadline. The Protecteur du citoyen refuted the department’s argument, saying it had the power to intervene not only on legal grounds, but also on the grounds of reason and equity. After a number of months of debate, the departments in question at last agreed to jointly pay the citizen $5,000 in compensation. They also put a mechanism into place to prevent this type of mistake from happening again.

2. Data entry error costs him a semester

When the Ministère de l'Éducation (MEQ) informed a student he had failed his Secondary V departmental French exam required for college admission, he took the test again but failed again, preventing him from starting in the fall session. He therefore asked the school board to forward him the results of his first exam in June. Astonished with his grade of “0%,” he contacted the department on August 25, asking to have his results reviewed. Upon reviewing the file, the MEQ informed the student that his result had been confused with that of another student, and that he had in fact passed the exam in June. The Administration made the correction, issued the high school diploma, and sent the file to the school board on September 10. On September 22, the board received the file and gave it to the student. However, the college refused to admit the student since courses had already begun and his risk of failure was too high. The student had to wait until January to go back to school. The Protecteur du citoyen was asked to intervene. It concluded that the MEQ was responsible for the mistake and asked for compensation. The deputy minister of education responded favorably to the request, and the student received financial compensation. The department also took steps to improve the official document forwarding process.

3. Illegal fees for the 2nd time

An organization called “Gestionnaire des rivières à saumon du Québec” charges a fee to Quebecers operating river fishing guide businesses. The operators contested the fee, but the Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec informed them that it had outsourced the administration of these business permits. The Protecteur du citoyen was called in to help and discovered the Act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife in no way authorized the Société to charge this fee—and it could not delegate a power it did not have. The Société therefore suspended the fee in question and stated it would request an amendment to the law to authorize these fees in the future. The Protecteur du citoyen was not satisfied with these half measures and contacted the Ministère des Ressources naturelles, de la Faune et des Parcs (MRNFP), now responsible for the matter (the Société de la faune et des parcs had been disbanded). The MRNFP agreed to reimburse the citizens, who paid over $14,000 in illegal fees. Earlier, in 1996–1997, the Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Faune had imposed hunting fees for big game registration without any legal basis for doing so. The Protecteur du citoyen had denounced the situation at the time and had it corrected in that case, too.

4. Asking for flexibility and common sense

After a workplace accident, a citizen was no longer able to perform the same professional duties as before. He was therefore granted an income replacement indemnity (IRI) by the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST). Because his employer was not able to reassign him, the citizen found a new job, which terminated his IRI payments. Shortly thereafter, the citizen lost his new job and asked for his IRI to be reinstated, but the CSST refused. The Protecteur du citoyen concluded that the CSST’s decision illegally infringed on the worker’s right to an indemnity, since the law clearly states that an employee is entitled to the IRI as long as he or she cannot fill the same position as before the accident. In short, the presumption of disability applies, because the citizen is entitled to an indemnity until such time as a final decision is made on file consolidation. Although the indemnity may be reduced or even temporarily suspended when a citizen takes a new job, the CSST did not have the right to refuse him the IRI when he lost his new job. After this unreasonable and illegally restrictive decision was made, the Protecteur du citoyen obtained an indemnity of over $8,500 for the complainant.

5. Certificate already on file

A foreign-born citizen who had lived in Québec since childhood obtained Canadian citizenship in 1972. In 2002, he spent a few months in another province. When he returned to Québec, he applied for a health insurance card, attaching a copy of a commemorative citizenship certificate because he had misplaced his official documents. The Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec would not recognize this document, because the citizen’s gender was not indicated, which is required by regulations. The citizen contacted the Protecteur du citoyen. In consulting the citizen’s file, it found a copy of his birth certificate contained therein. The card was then issued. The Protecteur du citoyen reminded the department that it is basic common sense to open a citizen’s file before refusing to issue a card due to a lack of proof.

6. A troublesome attitude

In a ruling, a citizen received reimbursement for support overpayment. When he was informed the total was $500, higher than expected, the citizen contacted Revenu Québec and was informed that he was indeed entitled to this reimbursement and would likely obtain more. Three years later, he received a claim for $700 from Revenu Québec. The Protecteur du citoyen took the case and discovered that funds were in fact due to the Ministère de l'Emploi, de la Solidarité sociale et de la Famille (MESSF), which had advanced this amount in support of the recipient. However, the MESSF was late in informing Revenu Québec, which itself waited a year before contacting the citizen. Considering that the citizen had shown exemplary attention, an error was made from the very beginning, and his income was low, the Protector recommended canceling the claim. However, Revenu Québec invoked its role as an intermediary to refuse the request. The Protector was not pleased with the response and was particularly concerned about the way Revenu Québec denied responsibility in the matter by claiming it was acting on behalf of a third party. At last, after much back and forth, the Protector was informed that the matter had been settled to the satisfaction of both parties and that the $700 claim had been issued to the spouse, who had never declared the amount to the MESSF or Revenu Québec. There was therefore no reason to claim the money back from the former spouse.

7. Inmate transferred five times in one year

Once again this year, the Protecteur du citoyen observed that the overpopulation and deterioration of certain facilities and the organization and monitoring of healthcare services remain recurrent problems in detention centers. The Protector is particularly concerned about the treatment of people with mental health problems, which is common among inmates. During the past year, one inmate suffering from major depression and suicidal ideation and showing behavioral problems was transferred five times between facilities. Each transfer affected his medical treatment, increasing his anxiety and the risk of suicide. Why was he transferred so many times? Is transferring inmates from one facility to another on the premise of overpopulation the way correctional services handles people with mental health problems? What are the real reasons? It is important to identify them if we are to find appropriate solutions. The Protector is keeping a close eye on the situation.

8. A costly delay

When a citizen suffered a car accident shortly after finishing school in June 2001, he contacted the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), which established his indemnity based on student status. In 2003, the SAAQ changed its position and declared the citizen was unemployed but able to work at the time of the incident, since he had finished his studies. In such situations, the SAAQ has six months to set the amount of the indemnity. To do so, it considers the citizen’s training, work experience, and physical and intellectual abilities. It can then determine whether the person could have held a job if the accident had not occurred. Still awaiting a response on the matter in March 2004, the citizen contacted the Protecteur du citoyen, which had the case settled promptly. In April 2004, the SAAQ paid out $37,000 in back income replacement indemnities (IRI). Still unable to work, the citizen continues to receive IRI.

- 30 -

Top of page