Cauchon v. Commission des accidents du travail de Québec et al.

Cauchon v. Commission des accidents du travail de Québec et al.

The Supreme Court upheld concurrent factual findings that the effective cause of the explosion was imprudent use of the heater by the owner or persons for whom he was responsible; those findings could not be disturbed on appeal and, accordingly, the Commission's claim succeeded and the appellant's action in warranty against Leclerc failed.

Citation
[1964] SCR 395
Parties
Appellant (defendant and Plaintiff in Warranty): Docteur Rosaire Cauchon; Respondent (plaintiff): La Commission des accidents du travail de Québec; Respondent (defendant in Warranty): Alexandre Leclerc
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (tort/workmen's Compensation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); Cartwright J. dissenting
Legal Topics
Subrogation, Indemnity/warranty, Liability of Contractor, Findings of Fact, Duty to Warn
Source Language
English
Torts Workers' Compensation Civil Procedure Subrogation Indemnity/warranty Liability of Contractor Findings of Fact Duty to Warn

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Docteur Rosaire Cauchon

Appellant (defendant and Plaintiff in Warranty)

La Commission des accidents du travail de Québec

Respondent (plaintiff)

Alexandre Leclerc

Respondent (defendant in Warranty)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (tort/workmen's Compensation) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the owner (appellant) was liable for the employee's injuries following the heater explosion
  2. 2 Whether the contractor/employee in warranty (Leclerc) was solely responsible and liable to indemnify the owner
  3. 3 Whether the Workmen's Compensation Act barred indirect recovery against the contractor by permitting subrogation to the Commission

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld concurrent factual findings that the effective cause of the explosion was imprudent use of the heater by the owner or persons for whom he was responsible; those findings could not be disturbed on appeal and, accordingly, the Commission's claim succeeded and the appellant's action in warranty against Leclerc failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); Cartwright J. dissenting

Orders

  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench affirmed
  • Respondent Commission's claim allowed for $4,490.50 against appellant