Duferesne v. Préfontaine / Vallée v. Préfontaine

Duferesne v. Préfontaine / Vallée v. Préfontaine

The appeals were dismissed because (1) the evidence supported the factual finding that the second procès-verbal was made within six months of completion; (2) art.2013 does not require notice to the proprietor's creditors under the expertise it prescribes and the absence of such notice did not prejudice appellants; (3) the wording of the second procès-verbal sufficiently established the expert's acceptance and valuation of the works and need not use formulaic words; and (4) inclusion of work not entitled to privilege does not void the procès-verbal but only permits reduction of the valuation; lower courts' judgments were therefore correct.

Citation
(1892) 21 SCR 607
Parties
Appellant (contestant): Joseph Moise Dufresne et al.; Appellant (contestant): J. B. Vallée; Respondent (claimant): Toussaint Préfontaine
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 1892
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (judgment)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench and Superior Court affirmed.
Legal Topics
Builder's Privilege, Expert Evidence, Procès Verbal, Registration of Rights, Relative Valuation (ventilation), Acceptance of Works
Source Language
English
Contract Property Civil Procedure Bankruptcy/insolvency Builder's Privilege Expert Evidence Procès Verbal Registration of Rights +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Moise Dufresne et al.

Appellant (contestant)

J. B. Vallée

Appellant (contestant)

Toussaint Préfontaine

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an expert appointed under art.2013 C.C. must give notice to proprietor's creditors of his proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the second procès-verbal was made within six months of completion of the works as required by art.2013 C.C.
  3. 3 Whether the second procès-verbal must state in express terms that the expert accepted and received the works

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed because (1) the evidence supported the factual finding that the second procès-verbal was made within six months of completion; (2) art.2013 does not require notice to the proprietor's creditors under the expertise it prescribes and the absence of such notice did not prejudice appellants; (3) the wording of the second procès-verbal sufficiently established the expert's acceptance and valuation of the works and need not use formulaic words; and (4) inclusion of work not entitled to privilege does not void the procès-verbal but only permits reduction of the valuation; lower courts' judgments were therefore correct.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench and Superior Court affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs.
  • Judgments below affirmed.