UPDATED: Supreme Court refuses to hear case of man killed in garage collapse

The family of a man who was crushed to death when a parking garage collapsed on his car in November of 2008 is devastated by the Supreme Court's refusal to hear their appeal.

Saleh Khazali, 36, came to Montreal in 2006 hoping for a better future. He was making a pick up at 135 Deguire for his courier company when a concrete slab fell on his car and killed him.

His family tried to sue CAPREIT, the owner of the parking garage, for damages, but Quebec Superior said the incident was a traffic accident, therefore covered by Quebec's no-fault insurance programme, which prevents people from suing for punitive or compensatory damages.

Now the Supreme Court has upheld that decision.

Khazali's cousin, Abdelkhadre Bichara, says the family has not received any compensation from CAPREIT. The company hasn't even apologized.

He says the man was sending money to his two son's back home in the central African nation of Chad, and they need the money. 

"He has two sons back home, his mother, his father, who is going to take care of them?"

"The law is not fair, it needs to change, even in my country if something like this happened the owner of the building would have to pay."

His lawyer, Bricka Stanislas agreed.

"The law should be revised to protect victims," he told CJAD.

The coroner had ruled that construction faults, improper repairs, and infrequent maintenance all contributed to his death, which could have been avoided.

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
  1. ric posted on 03/28/2014 06:41 AM
    How stupid. The taxpayers pay for the guilt of the parking garage owners. How is this a traffic accident?????????
  2. WILLinMTL posted on 03/28/2014 07:31 AM
    How is this a traffic accident?! The building owners are getting away with negligence on the backs of taxpayers. Who's to say they didn't take this law into account when they decided to be negligent and risk people's lives. This law needs to immediately be rewritten to state clearly that you must be DRIVING on PUBLIC ROADWAY to be considered a traffic accident.
  3. George73 posted on 03/28/2014 03:12 PM
    This is a truly disgusting decision by the Supreme Court. The collapse of a building or part thereof is a traffic accident just because part of the structure hit a car? There is something seriously wrong in this province and this country when decisions such as this are rendered.

    The absence of any elected official speaking out against this outrage is truly telling.

    Someone is dead because someone else did not do their job and/or tried to save a few dollars in maintenance and repairs. Had the victim been standing next to his car rather than sitting in it, it would not have been ruled a traffic accident.

    I think the names of the owners of this negligent company should be published. At least they need to be publically shamed for hiding behind this unjust law.
  4. alecto posted on 04/11/2014 12:44 AM
    Anyone who has rented in one of these slumlord-run buildings knows that this is typical. The landlords have no money for maintenance but they spend a lot of money on lawyers.
showing all comments

News Videos

Latest News