Heppel v. Stewart et al.

Heppel v. Stewart et al.

The majority held that s.147(1) applies whenever a motor vehicle was the occasion of the damage (i.e. the vehicle brought about the damage), regardless of the legal basis of the claim; accordingly the twelve‑month limitation barred the late addition of the repairer and the Court of Appeal’s order adding him was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1968] SCR 707
Parties
Appellant (proposed Defendant): Frank J. Heppel; Plaintiff/respondent: Margaret Stewart; Defendant/respondent: Dias Domingos; Defendant/respondent: Leonard Cordery
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 June 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort (motor Vehicle Collision; Personal Injury and Property Damage) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario Concerning an Application to Add a Party Defendant
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed (Judson J. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Interpretation of 'occasioned by a Motor Vehicle', Third‑party Addition/joinder, Negligent Repair
Source Language
english
Tort Motor Vehicle Law Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Limitation Period Interpretation of 'occasioned by a Motor Vehicle' Third‑party Addition/joinder Negligent Repair

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank J. Heppel

Appellant (proposed Defendant)

Margaret Stewart

Plaintiff/respondent

Dias Domingos

Defendant/respondent

Leonard Cordery

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort (motor Vehicle Collision; Personal Injury and Property Damage) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario Concerning an Application to Add a Party Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff’s damages were 'occasioned by a motor vehicle' within s.147(1) of the Highway Traffic Act
  2. 2 Whether the statutory twelve‑month limitation period bars adding a repairer as a party defendant after twelve months
  3. 3 How to construe the phrase 'occasioned by a motor vehicle' — plain meaning versus limitation to use/operation

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that s.147(1) applies whenever a motor vehicle was the occasion of the damage (i.e. the vehicle brought about the damage), regardless of the legal basis of the claim; accordingly the twelve‑month limitation barred the late addition of the repairer and the Court of Appeal’s order adding him was reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed (Judson J. dissenting).

Orders

  • Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario adding Frank J. Heppel as a party defendant reversed
  • Application to add Frank J. Heppel as a party defendant dismissed as time‑barred under s.147(1) of the Highway Traffic Act