Méthot v. Commission de Transport de Montréal

Méthot v. Commission de Transport de Montréal

Under ss. 536, 536a and 537 of the Charter of the City of Montreal, read with this Court's prior interpretation in La Cité de Québec v. Baribeau, the statutory notice required by s. 536 is an essential element of the right of action; the right of action therefore originates only after the notice is received and the 30‑day waiting period has expired, and the six‑month prescription in ss. 536a and 537 runs from that point (the date of receipt of notice), not from the date of the accident; consequently the action was not prescribed.

Citation
[1972] SCR 387
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: René Méthot; Defendant/respondent: Montreal Transportation Commission; Injured Minor: Michel Méthot
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1971
Procedural Posture
Municipal Law; Tort (delict); Limitation of Actions / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action declared not prescribed; record returned to Court of Appeal for determination of merits.
Legal Topics
Notice Requirement as Condition Precedent, Commencement of Prescription, Right of Action Origin, Interpretation of Charter of the City of Montreal Ss. 536, 536a, 537
Source Language
English
Municipal Law Tort Law Prescription (limitation) Civil Procedure Notice Requirement as Condition Precedent Commencement of Prescription Right of Action Origin Interpretation of Charter of the City of Montreal Ss. 536, 536a, 537

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

René Méthot

Plaintiff/appellant

Montreal Transportation Commission

Defendant/respondent

Michel Méthot

Injured Minor

Procedural Posture

Municipal Law; Tort (delict); Limitation of Actions / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the six‑month prescription under ss. 536a and 537 runs from the date of the accident or from the date the statutory notice was received by the municipality
  2. 2 Whether the notice required by s. 536 is a condition precedent forming part of the right of action or merely a procedural step
  3. 3 How to resolve ambiguities between English and French versions of the statutory provisions

Ratio Decidendi

Under ss. 536, 536a and 537 of the Charter of the City of Montreal, read with this Court's prior interpretation in La Cité de Québec v. Baribeau, the statutory notice required by s. 536 is an essential element of the right of action; the right of action therefore originates only after the notice is received and the 30‑day waiting period has expired, and the six‑month prescription in ss. 536a and 537 runs from that point (the date of receipt of notice), not from the date of the accident; consequently the action was not prescribed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action declared not prescribed; record returned to Court of Appeal for determination of merits.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Action against respondent declared not prescribed