Quebec Asbestos Corporation v. Couture

Quebec Asbestos Corporation v. Couture

Under the contract's terms and factual matrix Couture was an independent contractor, not an employee: he controlled hire, pay, direction and method of work and bore contractual liability for delivering properly sized rock; consequently Quebec Asbestos Corporation did not have employer responsibilities for his safety and is not liable for the explosion, which arose from Couture's or his employees' failure to detect unexploded charges.

Citation
[1929] SCR 166
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Quebec Asbestos Corporation; Respondent/plaintiff: Gedeon Couture
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1928
Procedural Posture
Negligence (tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for appellant. Respondent's action dismissed. Costs to appellant.
Legal Topics
Independent Contractor Vs Employee, Employer Liability for Workplace Accidents, Negligence, Use of Explosives in Mining, Workmen's Compensation Insurance
Source Language
English
Torts Employment Law Contract Law Occupational Safety Independent Contractor Vs Employee Employer Liability for Workplace Accidents Negligence Use of Explosives in Mining +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quebec Asbestos Corporation

Appellant/defendant

Gedeon Couture

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Negligence (tort) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injured party was an employee or an independent contractor
  2. 2 Whether the company owed employer-style duties of care and was liable for the explosion
  3. 3 Whether provision of tools, dynamite or insurance converted the relationship into employment

Ratio Decidendi

Under the contract's terms and factual matrix Couture was an independent contractor, not an employee: he controlled hire, pay, direction and method of work and bore contractual liability for delivering properly sized rock; consequently Quebec Asbestos Corporation did not have employer responsibilities for his safety and is not liable for the explosion, which arose from Couture's or his employees' failure to detect unexploded charges.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for appellant. Respondent's action dismissed. Costs to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Respondent's action dismissed