Robertson v. La Commission des Liqueurs de Québec

Robertson v. La Commission des Liqueurs de Québec

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that the appellant was the real owner of the vessel; the appellant failed to prove title and therefore his action for recovery could not succeed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1933] SCR 246
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (claimant Owner): Robertson; Respondent (provincial Liquor Commission): La Commission des Liqueurs de Québec
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 November 1932
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of King’s Bench (quebec); Civil Action for Revendication of Vessel Following Seizure Under Provincial Penal Statute / Supreme Court of Canada Final Appeal; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; lower court judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Seizure and Forfeiture, Revendication, Ownership Dispute, Confiscation Under Provincial Statute
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Property Law Administrative Law Seizure and Forfeiture Revendication Ownership Dispute Confiscation Under Provincial Statute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robertson

Appellant / Plaintiff (claimant Owner)

La Commission des Liqueurs de Québec

Respondent (provincial Liquor Commission)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of King’s Bench (quebec); Civil Action for Revendication of Vessel Following Seizure Under Provincial Penal Statute / Supreme Court of Canada Final Appeal; Judgment Delivered

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established title to the seized vessel
  2. 2 Whether a revendication action can succeed where evidence does not establish the real owner
  3. 3 Effect of a seizure under provincial penal statute on a subsequent claim for recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that the appellant was the real owner of the vessel; the appellant failed to prove title and therefore his action for recovery could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; lower court judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of King’s Bench, appeal side, affirmed.