Hêtu v. Dixville Butter & Cheese Assoc'n

Hêtu v. Dixville Butter & Cheese Assoc'n

The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the defendants had taken reasonable care, entertained a bona fide belief founded on reasonable grounds that the appellant was guilty, and that the plaintiff failed to prove malice or reprehensible indiscretion; therefore the malicious prosecution action could not succeed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1908) 40 SCR 128
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Gonzague E. Hêtu; Respondent / Defendant: The Dixville Butter and Cheese Association
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 1908
Procedural Posture
Civil Malicious Prosecution (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Malicious Prosecution, Reasonable and Probable Cause, Burden of Proof, Bona Fide Belief, Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Criminal Law Civil Procedure Malicious Prosecution Reasonable and Probable Cause Burden of Proof Bona Fide Belief Damages

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gonzague E. Hêtu

Appellant / Plaintiff

The Dixville Butter and Cheese Association

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Malicious Prosecution (tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an action for malicious prosecution lies where the prosecutor entertained a bona fide belief based on reasonable grounds that the accused was guilty
  2. 2 Which party bears the burden of proof regarding malice and reasonable probable cause in Quebec
  3. 3 Whether the defendants exercised reasonable care and acted without malice in laying the information

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the defendants had taken reasonable care, entertained a bona fide belief founded on reasonable grounds that the appellant was guilty, and that the plaintiff failed to prove malice or reprehensible indiscretion; therefore the malicious prosecution action could not succeed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs