Purolator Courier v. Cornwall Gravel

Purolator Courier v. Cornwall Gravel

The Supreme Court held there was no error in the courts below: the carrier remained liable for the damages claimed for delay and the attempted limitation did not justify overturning the judgment; appeal dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1980] 2 SCR 118
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Purolator Courier Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Bernard Levert; Defendant/appellant: Rhéal Boisvenue; Plaintiff/respondent: Cornwall Gravel Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 June 1980
Procedural Posture
Appeal Carriage of Goods (carrier Liability) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Holland J. and the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.
Legal Topics
Carrier's Liability, Limitation of Liability, Damage Caused by Delay, Public Commercial Vehicles Act R.s.o. 1970 C.375 Sch. a
Source Language
english
Transportation Commercial Law Tort Statutory Interpretation Carrier's Liability Limitation of Liability Damage Caused by Delay Public Commercial Vehicles Act R.s.o. 1970 C.375 Sch. a

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Purolator Courier Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Bernard Levert

Defendant/appellant

Rhéal Boisvenue

Defendant/appellant

Cornwall Gravel Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Carriage of Goods (carrier Liability) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Final Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether carrier is liable for damages caused by delay in carriage of goods
  2. 2 Whether statutory or contractual limitation of liability excludes recovery for delay damages
  3. 3 Whether the courts below erred in law or principle in holding the carrier liable

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held there was no error in the courts below: the carrier remained liable for the damages claimed for delay and the attempted limitation did not justify overturning the judgment; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Holland J. and the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Holland J. and the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed