Mayor of Montreal v. Hall

Mayor of Montreal v. Hall

The Court held the action was one for malicious prosecution, not merely libel; prescription began to run only after the termination of the judicial proceedings (when the accusations were finally rejected), therefore the action was timely; because the defendants pursued court proceedings without probable cause and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1885) 12 SCR 74
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Mayor et al., of the City of Montreal; Respondent/plaintiff (par Reprise D'instance): Dame M. E. Hall et al.; Original Plaintiff: James Key Springle (deceased)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 1885
Procedural Posture
Malicious Prosecution / Tort Appeal (municipal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side); Cross Appeal on Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada affirmed; damages increased on appeal.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Libel and Slander, Prescription, Probable Cause, Damages, Liability for Acts of Municipal Officers
Source Language
english
Torts Civil Procedure Municipal Law Malicious Prosecution Libel and Slander Prescription Probable Cause Damages +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Mayor et al., of the City of Montreal

Appellant/defendant

Dame M. E. Hall et al.

Respondent/plaintiff (par Reprise D'instance)

James Key Springle (deceased)

Original Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Malicious Prosecution / Tort Appeal (municipal) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side); Cross Appeal on Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action was for libel or malicious prosecution
  2. 2 When prescription begins to run for an action based on malicious prosecution arising from judicial proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had probable cause or acted with malice

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the action was one for malicious prosecution, not merely libel; prescription began to run only after the termination of the judicial proceedings (when the accusations were finally rejected), therefore the action was timely; because the defendants pursued court proceedings without probable cause and failed to prove the accusations, malice was properly inferred and the respondents were entitled to damages (Court of Queen's Bench judgment affirmed; damages increased).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada affirmed; damages increased on appeal.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal as to damages dismissed (no costs awarded on cross-appeal).