Scotland v. Canadian Cartridge Co.

Scotland v. Canadian Cartridge Co.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board correctly held the injury was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Act and thus had no jurisdiction to award compensation, but there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the defendant negligent in failing to provide adequate ventilation and that inhalation of noxious gases caused the plaintiff’s injury; the Appellate Division erred in setting aside the jury verdict and the trial judgment is restored.

Citation
(1919) 59 SCR 471
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Lawrence Scotland; Respondent/defendant: The Canadian Cartridge Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1919
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (personal Injury/occupational) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Appellate Division of Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of plaintiff
Legal Topics
Definition of "accident" Under Workmen's Compensation Act, Employer Duty to Ventilate, Chronic Poisoning by Inhalation, Jurisdiction of Compensation Board, Scope of Appellate Review of Jury Verdicts
Source Language
English
Labour and Employment Tort Negligence Administrative Law Occupational Health and Safety Statutory Interpretation Definition of "accident" Under Workmen's Compensation Act Employer Duty to Ventilate Chronic Poisoning by Inhalation +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Scotland

Appellant/plaintiff

The Canadian Cartridge Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (personal Injury/occupational) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Appellate Division of Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff’s illness was caused by inhalation of poisonous gases emitted in the course of employment
  2. 2 Whether employer was negligent in failing to provide adequate ventilation
  3. 3 Whether injury was an "accident" under the Workmen's Compensation Act thus ousting common law remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The Workmen’s Compensation Board correctly held the injury was not an "accident" within the meaning of the Act and thus had no jurisdiction to award compensation, but there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the defendant negligent in failing to provide adequate ventilation and that inhalation of noxious gases caused the plaintiff’s injury; the Appellate Division erred in setting aside the jury verdict and the trial judgment is restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of trial judge restored awarding plaintiff common law damages of $3,500.00