Pelletier v. Shykofsky

Pelletier v. Shykofsky

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's inference that the trip was a personal excursion and not carriage engaged on behalf of the employer; because the appellate court was entitled to draw a different inference from the facts and the appellant failed to show the Court of Appeal was clearly erroneous, the employer was not vicariously liable and the trial judgment could not stand.

Citation
[1957] SCR 635
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Paul Pelletier; Respondent (plaintiff): Benny Shykofsky
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury Vicarious Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side affirmed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability (master and Servant), Standard of Appellate Review on Findings of Fact, Intoxication and Liability, Engagement of Carriage/contract for Hire
Source Language
English
Torts Labour Law Civil Procedure Agency and Vicarious Liability Vicarious Liability (master and Servant) Standard of Appellate Review on Findings of Fact Intoxication and Liability Engagement of Carriage/contract for Hire

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

Parties

Paul Pelletier

Appellant (defendant)

Benny Shykofsky

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury Vicarious Liability) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the taxi driver acting in the course of his employment so as to render the employer vicariously liable under art.1054 C.C.?
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal properly reversed the trial judge on an inference of fact and the standard for interference by an appellate court

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeal's inference that the trip was a personal excursion and not carriage engaged on behalf of the employer; because the appellate court was entitled to draw a different inference from the facts and the appellant failed to show the Court of Appeal was clearly erroneous, the employer was not vicariously liable and the trial judgment could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs