Hébert v. La Cité de Thetford-Mines

Hébert v. La Cité de Thetford-Mines

Appeal dismissed. The court held the appellant was not the municipality's mandatary in respect of the act because he acted as minister of the law and/or was employed and paid by the circus at the time; therefore the municipality was not liable to indemnify him. Additionally, indemnity for taxed costs under Art.1725 C.C. requires allegation of attempted recovery or the third party's insolvency.

Citation
[1932] SCR 424
Parties
Appellant (constable): Louis Hébert; Respondent (municipality): La Cité de Thetford-Mines
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 March 1932
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Municipal Liability) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King’s Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Liability of Municipality for Acts of Constables, Mandatary Indemnity Under Art.1725 C.c., Distinction Between Municipal Officer and Minister of the Law, Liability When Mandatary Serves Multiple Principals
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Agency/mandate Tort Law Public Order Law Liability of Municipality for Acts of Constables Mandatary Indemnity Under Art.1725 C.c. Distinction Between Municipal Officer and Minister of the Law Liability When Mandatary Serves Multiple Principals

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Hébert

Appellant (constable)

La Cité de Thetford-Mines

Respondent (municipality)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Municipal Liability) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of King’s Bench, Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the constable acted as a municipal officer (binding the municipality) or as minister of the law (state officer) when he fired on rioters
  2. 2 Whether the municipality must indemnify the constable for costs and losses sustained in defending an action
  3. 3 Whether a mandatary of several principals binds which principal for the act causing injury

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed. The court held the appellant was not the municipality's mandatary in respect of the act because he acted as minister of the law and/or was employed and paid by the circus at the time; therefore the municipality was not liable to indemnify him. Additionally, indemnity for taxed costs under Art.1725 C.C. requires allegation of attempted recovery or the third party's insolvency.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King’s Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King’s Bench affirmed