Sheppard v. Frind

Sheppard v. Frind

The appeal is allowed and the trial judgment restored because the plaintiff failed to prove either the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the alimony action or the existence of special damage causally attributable to the appellant; settlement payments and costs under the judgment constituted discharge of a legal obligation and not recoverable special damage.

Citation
[1941] SCR 531
Parties
Appellant Defendant: Ross Sheppard; Respondent Plaintiff: Max Arno Frind
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 1941
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (maintenance/malicious Instigation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (final Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; respondent's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Maintenance (tort), Malicious Instigation, Special Damage, Alimony, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Settlement Effect
Source Language
English
Civil Tort Family Law Maintenance (tort) Malicious Instigation Special Damage Alimony Reasonable and Probable Cause +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ross Sheppard

Appellant Defendant

Max Arno Frind

Respondent Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (maintenance/malicious Instigation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario (final Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person who instigates litigation without reasonable and probable cause is civilly liable to the defendant of that litigation
  2. 2 Whether a plaintiff must prove special damage to recover for maliciously instigating litigation
  3. 3 Whether settlement payments and costs under a judgment constitute recoverable special damage caused by the instigator

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and the trial judgment restored because the plaintiff failed to prove either the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the alimony action or the existence of special damage causally attributable to the appellant; settlement payments and costs under the judgment constituted discharge of a legal obligation and not recoverable special damage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; respondent's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and trial judgment restored
  • Respondent's (plaintiff's) claim for damages dismissed