The Queen v. Martin

The Queen v. Martin

Even if 50–51 Vic. c.16 (1887) could be read to permit actions against the Crown for servants' negligence, the statute is not retroactive and cannot create liability for injuries sustained before its enactment; moreover, where a right of action existed under provincial law, the suppliant's claim was prescribed by the Civil Code of Quebec (one year) because the petition was filed more than a year after the injury; accordingly the appeal is allowed and judgment entered for the Crown.

Citation
(1892) 20 SCR 240
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Her Majesty the Queen; Respondent/suppliant: Joseph Adhemar Martin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 1892
Procedural Posture
Tort (petition of Right) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment for the Crown without costs
Legal Topics
Crown Liability, Prescription (statute of Limitations), Retroactivity of Statutes, Railway Regulation, Respondeat Superior, Petition of Right Procedure
Source Language
English
Torts Public Law Administrative Law Crown Liability Prescription (statute of Limitations) Retroactivity of Statutes Railway Regulation Respondeat Superior +1 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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Appellant/defendant

Joseph Adhemar Martin

Respondent/suppliant

Procedural Posture

Tort (petition of Right) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 50–51 Vic. c.16 s.16(c) creates a substantive cause of action against the Crown for servants' negligence or only confers jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether 50–51 Vic. c.16 operates retroactively to create liability for injuries occurring before its enactment
  3. 3 Whether any right of action was extinguished by prescription under the Civil Code of Quebec (arts.2262,2267,2188,2211) before petition filed

Ratio Decidendi

Even if 50–51 Vic. c.16 (1887) could be read to permit actions against the Crown for servants' negligence, the statute is not retroactive and cannot create liability for injuries sustained before its enactment; moreover, where a right of action existed under provincial law, the suppliant's claim was prescribed by the Civil Code of Quebec (one year) because the petition was filed more than a year after the injury; accordingly the appeal is allowed and judgment entered for the Crown.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; judgment for the Crown without costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Cross-appeal dismissed