Beaudet v. The North Shore Railway Co.

Beaudet v. The North Shore Railway Co.

The award was valid and binding because, despite inconsistent cadastral numbers, the notice and award both unambiguously identified the same parcel by reference to lot number 1 on the railway plan and by area (2 arpents 40 perches); the defendants, having defaulted on faits et articles, were not entitled to be relieved at a time that would delay the cause and lacked compliance with conditions to be relieved; procedural objections to adjournment and timing of the award were not established and were estopped by the presence of the defendants' arbitrator.

Citation
(1887) 15 SCR 44
Parties
Appellants: E. Beaudet et al.; Respondents: The North Shore Railway Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 1887
Procedural Posture
Expropriation Appeal Under 43 44 Vic. Ch. 43 (quebec Consolidated Railway Act 1880) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side) Reversing Superior Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Superior Court restored; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side) reversed.
Legal Topics
Expropriation, Arbitration Awards, Description of Property, Default on Interrogatories (faits Et Articles), Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Expropriation Arbitration Awards Description of Property Default on Interrogatories (faits Et Articles) Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. Beaudet et al.

Appellants

The North Shore Railway Co.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Expropriation Appeal Under 43 44 Vic. Ch. 43 (quebec Consolidated Railway Act 1880) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side) Reversing Superior Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award was invalid for uncertainty in description of land
  2. 2 Whether defendants could be allowed to answer faits et articles after they were taken pro confessis
  3. 3 Whether formal statutory requirements for arbitration (notice, appointment of day for award) were complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The award was valid and binding because, despite inconsistent cadastral numbers, the notice and award both unambiguously identified the same parcel by reference to lot number 1 on the railway plan and by area (2 arpents 40 perches); the defendants, having defaulted on faits et articles, were not entitled to be relieved at a time that would delay the cause and lacked compliance with conditions to be relieved; procedural objections to adjournment and timing of the award were not established and were estopped by the presence of the defendants' arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Superior Court restored; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench (appeal side) reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed and restored