Montreal Transportation Co. v. New Ontario S.S. Co.

Montreal Transportation Co. v. New Ontario S.S. Co.

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge improperly permitted, over timely objection, an amendment that transformed the case from that pleaded in the preliminary act into an entirely new theory of collision at a late stage, prejudicing the defendants; on the facts the plaintiffs failed to prove the collision alleged (and the preponderance of evidence was against the plaintiffs), therefore the judgment for plaintiffs was reversed and the action dismissed.

Citation
(1908) 40 SCR 160
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Montreal Transportation Co.; Plaintiff Respondent: New Ontario Steamship Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 1908
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action for Collision Damage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (toronto Admiralty District)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below reversed; action dismissed
Legal Topics
Collision, Preliminary Act, Amendment of Pleadings, Burden of Proof, Navigation Rules (rules of the Road), Protest and Log Evidence
Source Language
English
Admiralty Maritime Law Civil Procedure Evidence Collision Preliminary Act Amendment of Pleadings Burden of Proof +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montreal Transportation Co.

Defendant Appellant

New Ontario Steamship Co.

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action for Collision Damage / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (toronto Admiralty District)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a collision between the vessels occurred
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge properly allowed an amendment of the statement of claim contrary to the preliminary act and over objection
  3. 3 Whether errors in the preliminary act can be remedied by pleadings and when

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the trial judge improperly permitted, over timely objection, an amendment that transformed the case from that pleaded in the preliminary act into an entirely new theory of collision at a late stage, prejudicing the defendants; on the facts the plaintiffs failed to prove the collision alleged (and the preponderance of evidence was against the plaintiffs), therefore the judgment for plaintiffs was reversed and the action dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below reversed; action dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of Exchequer Court (local admiralty judge) reversed