Crawford v. City of Montreal

Crawford v. City of Montreal

The court preferred the direct witness evidence over the city's expert reports because the experts were based on hearsay and municipal returns, found the plaintiff proved loss of rent totaling $2,763.19 after deductions, and upheld the action in part, awarding that sum with interest and costs.

Citation
(1900) 30 SCR 406
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: David Crawford; Respondent / Defendant: The City of Montreal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1900
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Damages – Municipal Expropriation/road Widening) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada; Prior Superior Court Judgment Varied
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; action maintained in part for loss of rent.
Legal Topics
Expert Opinion, Hearsay, Extra Judicial Statements, Assessor's Reports, Damages, Expropriation
Source Language
English
Evidence Municipal Law Tort Property Expert Opinion Hearsay Extra Judicial Statements Assessor's Reports +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Crawford

Appellant / Plaintiff

The City of Montreal

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Damages – Municipal Expropriation/road Widening) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada; Prior Superior Court Judgment Varied

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether testimony of witnesses with personal knowledge should be preferred to expert opinions founded on extra-judicial statements and municipal reports when there is direct contradiction
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved loss of rent attributable to the municipality's abandonment of a street-widening improvement and the appropriate quantum and temporal limits of such losses
  3. 3 The evidentiary weight and admissibility considerations for expert reports based on hearsay or assessor returns

Ratio Decidendi

The court preferred the direct witness evidence over the city's expert reports because the experts were based on hearsay and municipal returns, found the plaintiff proved loss of rent totaling $2,763.19 after deductions, and upheld the action in part, awarding that sum with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; action maintained in part for loss of rent.

Orders

  • Judgment varied to award the plaintiff $2,763.19 for loss of rent, with interest from the date of service of the action, and costs in all courts; appeal allowed with costs.