Gordon v. Trottier

Gordon v. Trottier

Majority dismissed the appeal: on review of the whole evidence the Court was satisfied there was no evidence that the respondent’s conduct was a causative negligence (child not visible until she emerged from between cars; respondent reacted promptly; 25 mph in 30 mph zone was not improper under circumstances), and the statutory onus did not alter the standard for appellate interference where courts of fact reached clear opposite conclusions.

Citation
[1974] SCR 158
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Pauline Gordon (by her next friend Newton Gordon); Defendant/respondent: Claudette Trottier (now Claudette Gauthier)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 1973
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (Spence and Laskin JJ. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Onus of Proof, Contributory Negligence, Standard of Care, Highway Traffic Act S.133(1)
Source Language
English
Tort Motor Vehicles Law Negligence Appellate Review Onus of Proof Contributory Negligence Standard of Care Highway Traffic Act S.133(1)

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Gordon (by her next friend Newton Gordon)

Plaintiff/appellant

Claudette Trottier (now Claudette Gauthier)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the driver satisfied the statutory onus to prove the accident did not arise from her negligence under s.133(1) of the Highway Traffic Act
  2. 2 Whether the six‑year‑old plaintiff’s contributory negligence bars or reduces recovery
  3. 3 What standard governs interference by a second appellate court when a trial judge and first appellate court reach opposite clear conclusions on facts

Ratio Decidendi

Majority dismissed the appeal: on review of the whole evidence the Court was satisfied there was no evidence that the respondent’s conduct was a causative negligence (child not visible until she emerged from between cars; respondent reacted promptly; 25 mph in 30 mph zone was not improper under circumstances), and the statutory onus did not alter the standard for appellate interference where courts of fact reached clear opposite conclusions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (Spence and Laskin JJ. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent