Demers et al. v. Dufresne Engineering Co. Ltd. et al.

Demers et al. v. Dufresne Engineering Co. Ltd. et al.

Majority: The engineer’s contract contained an enforceable stipulation for the benefit of the contractor (clause 14) obliging the engineer to provide necessary information, advice and instructions when objectively required; given the engineer’s complete authority over work methods he was obliged to intervene when a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 146
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Lucille B. Demers; Claude Demers; Jacques Desnoyers (co-executors of the Estate of Georges Demers); Respondents (plaintiffs): Dufresne Engineering Company Limited; McNamara (Quebec) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Appeal (supreme Court of Canada) / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part (majority), dissent by Pigeon J. disagreed
Legal Topics
Stipulation for Benefit of Third Person (stipulation Pour Autrui), Engineer’s Duty and Authority Over Construction Methods, Causation and Allocation of Fault, Supervision and Approval of Work Methods, Interpretation of Contractual Obligations
Source Language
english
Contract Construction Law Professional Negligence Civil Law (quebec) Stipulation for Benefit of Third Person (stipulation Pour Autrui) Engineer’s Duty and Authority Over Construction Methods Causation and Allocation of Fault Supervision and Approval of Work Methods +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucille B. Demers; Claude Demers; Jacques Desnoyers (co-executors of the Estate of Georges Demers)

Appellants (defendants)

Dufresne Engineering Company Limited; McNamara (Quebec) Limited

Respondents (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Appeal (supreme Court of Canada) / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether contract between owner and engineer contained a stipulation for the benefit of the contractor and, if so, its scope
  2. 2 Whether the engineer owed an obligation to the contractor to provide advice/instructions without a specific request and to prevent manifestly unsafe work methods
  3. 3 Whether the engineer was liable under Civil Code arts. 1053 or 1688 or under the stipulation pour autrui

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The engineer’s contract contained an enforceable stipulation for the benefit of the contractor (clause 14) obliging the engineer to provide necessary information, advice and instructions when objectively required; given the engineer’s complete authority over work methods he was obliged to intervene when a contractor adopted a manifestly erroneous method; the engineer implicitly approved the defective caisson method and an inadequate remedial alteration and thereby breached his contractual obligation to the contractor; liability for the caisson explosion is shared equally between engineer and contractor; judgment increased to $700,000 with specified interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed in part (majority), dissent by Pigeon J. disagreed

Orders

  • Decision of Court of Appeal varied to increase amount of judgment to $700000 with interest at 5% from summons and additional indemnity of 3% per annum from January 1, 1972
  • Costs throughout against appellants