Legroulx v. Pitre

Legroulx v. Pitre

The Court held there was no breach of s.7 because exposure to civil monetary liability is not a deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person and the discretion to discharge a civil jury is not unconstitutionally vague; there was no breach of s.15 because the class alleged ('non-lawyer-educated fact-finders') is not an enumerated or analogous ground and the rule preferring judges in complex cases does not demean or stereotype jurors; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2009 ONCA 760
Parties
Plaintiffs (respondents): Daniel Legroulx; Lise Legroulx; Ronald Legroulx; Philip Legroulx; Defendants (appellants): Eric M. Pitre; Diane Labrecque; Intervener: The Advocates' Society; Intervener: Ontario Trial Lawyers' Association
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal on Order Discharging Jury in Civil Trial; Judgment Issued on Charter Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.15, Jury Discharge for Complexity, Civil Jury Trials, Vagueness Doctrine
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Jury Law Charter S.7 Charter S.15 Jury Discharge for Complexity Civil Jury Trials Vagueness Doctrine

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Legroulx; Lise Legroulx; Ronald Legroulx; Philip Legroulx

Plaintiffs (respondents)

Eric M. Pitre; Diane Labrecque

Defendants (appellants)

The Advocates' Society

Intervener

Ontario Trial Lawyers' Association

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Court of Appeal on Order Discharging Jury in Civil Trial; Judgment Issued on Charter Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge's power to discharge a civil jury on grounds of complexity violates s.7 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether that power violates s.15 of the Charter by discriminating against an analogous class
  3. 3 Whether exposure to potential civil damages constitutes deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person under s.7

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was no breach of s.7 because exposure to civil monetary liability is not a deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person and the discretion to discharge a civil jury is not unconstitutionally vague; there was no breach of s.15 because the class alleged ('non-lawyer-educated fact-finders') is not an enumerated or analogous ground and the rule preferring judges in complex cases does not demean or stereotype jurors; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs