Hayduk v. Pidoborozny

Hayduk v. Pidoborozny

Registration is prima facie proof of ownership and, on the facts, the father was the legal purchaser under a conditional sales contract and therefore owner at common law; s.2(m) extending the definition of owner to persons with exclusive use for more than thirty days does not exclude or displace the registered owner, and therefore the father was an "owner" for the purposes of s.130 and vicariously liable; appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.

Citation
[1972] SCR 879
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Mike Hayduk (by his next friend Walter Hayduk); Plaintiff Appellant: Alexandra Boyko (an infant by her next friend Peter Boyko); Defendant Respondent: Ronald W. Pidoborozny; Defendant Respondent: Peter Pidoborozny
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury Tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored; respondents held jointly and severally liable for damages and costs.
Legal Topics
Definition of Owner Under Statute, Vicarious Liability of Vehicle Owner, Registration as Prima Facie Proof of Ownership, Conditional Sales and Common Law Ownership, Financial Responsibility Requirements
Source Language
English
Motor Vehicles Vicarious Liability Statutory Interpretation Highway Traffic Law Definition of Owner Under Statute Vicarious Liability of Vehicle Owner Registration as Prima Facie Proof of Ownership Conditional Sales and Common Law Ownership +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mike Hayduk (by his next friend Walter Hayduk)

Plaintiff Appellant

Alexandra Boyko (an infant by her next friend Peter Boyko)

Plaintiff Appellant

Ronald W. Pidoborozny

Defendant Respondent

Peter Pidoborozny

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury Tort) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a registered owner is an "owner" within s.130 of the Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act for the purpose of statutory vicarious liability
  2. 2 Whether inclusion by statute of a person with exclusive use for more than 30 days excludes or displaces the registered owner from liability
  3. 3 Whether the father was the owner at common law despite son making payments under conditional sales agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Registration is prima facie proof of ownership and, on the facts, the father was the legal purchaser under a conditional sales contract and therefore owner at common law; s.2(m) extending the definition of owner to persons with exclusive use for more than thirty days does not exclude or displace the registered owner, and therefore the father was an "owner" for the purposes of s.130 and vicariously liable; appeal allowed and trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored; respondents held jointly and severally liable for damages and costs.

Orders

  • Restore trial judgment of Greschuk J.
  • Appellants to recover from the respondents jointly and severally the amount of damages and costs as assessed at trial.