Leclerc v. Massie (J.N.) & Fils Limitée

Leclerc v. Massie (J.N.) & Fils Limitée

On the facts found by the trial judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the respondent had substantially performed the contract and the evidence did not establish liability under art.1688 for partial loss; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the respondent entitled to the balance due, with only limited deductions for items not completed as allowed by the Court of Appeal.

Citation
[1971] SCR 377
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Thérèse Leclerc; Respondent / Plaintiff: J.N. Massie & Fils Limitée
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 February 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Pigeon and Laskin JJ. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Architect Certification, Contractor Liability, Article 1688 Civil Code, Partial Loss, Substantial Performance
Source Language
English
Contract Construction Civil Code Obligations Architect Certification Contractor Liability Article 1688 Civil Code Partial Loss Substantial Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thérèse Leclerc

Appellant / Defendant

J.N. Massie & Fils Limitée

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defects amounted to a partial loss of the building engaging contractor liability under art.1688 Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether the architect's certificate and directions exonerate the contractor from liability
  3. 3 Whether the contractor substantially performed the contract and is entitled to the balance claimed

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts found by the trial judge and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the respondent had substantially performed the contract and the evidence did not establish liability under art.1688 for partial loss; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the respondent entitled to the balance due, with only limited deductions for items not completed as allowed by the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Pigeon and Laskin JJ. dissenting.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; Pigeon and Laskin JJ. dissenting.