Hevesy Corporation v. Sauvé

Hevesy Corporation v. Sauvé

Majority held appellant was justified in terminating the employment contract for proven incompetency based on the evidence; the pleadings were sufficient to raise incompetency; the advances (drawing account and travelling expenses) were not repayable only out of commissions because 'only' qualified 'advances' and not 'repayable'; appellant was entitled to recover amounts owing including the automobile advance and the action was not premature.

Citation
[1958] SCR 113
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Hevesy Corporation; Defendant/respondent: J. H. Sauvé
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 1958
Procedural Posture
Contract (employment) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Superior Court restored; Locke J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Termination/cancellation, Pleadings, Damages, Conservatory Attachment
Source Language
English
Contract Employment Law Civil Procedure Contract Interpretation Termination/cancellation Pleadings Damages Conservatory Attachment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hevesy Corporation

Plaintiff/appellant

J. H. Sauvé

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract (employment) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pleadings sufficiently alleged 'proven incompetency' or 'well known misconduct'
  2. 2 Whether appellant was justified in terminating the employment contract
  3. 3 Whether advances (drawing account and travelling expenses) were repayable only out of commissions

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held appellant was justified in terminating the employment contract for proven incompetency based on the evidence; the pleadings were sufficient to raise incompetency; the advances (drawing account and travelling expenses) were not repayable only out of commissions because 'only' qualified 'advances' and not 'repayable'; appellant was entitled to recover amounts owing including the automobile advance and the action was not premature.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Superior Court restored; Locke J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Allow appeal with costs
  • Restore judgment of Montpetit J., maintaining main action and dismissing respondent's cross-demand