The City sought to hold identified rioters solidarily liable for the full loss of specific patrol cars damaged during a hockey riot.
The Court held that solidarity under article 1480 C.C.Q. requires impossibility of identifying who caused the injury and, for joint participation, a common intention, both absent on these facts.
It also held article 1526 C.C.Q. did not apply because the trial judge found distinct identifiable injuries linked to distinct faults rather than one single injury caused by common or contributory faults.
Liability in solidum could not be used to bypass the Civil Code framework for extracontractual solidarity.
The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent favoring solidary liability for groups that destroyed each vehicle together.
