Rossignol v. Hart

Rossignol v. Hart

A determination by the Workmen's Compensation Board that an employee sustained no injury is not conclusive or binding in a subsequent common law negligence action against a co-employee; the Board's findings do not bar third-party actions in the absence of clear statutory provision making such findings binding on those third parties.

Citation
[1956] SCR 314
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Oliva Rossignol; Plaintiff Appellant: Rodolphe Rossignol; Defendant Respondent: Moe Hart
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 February 1956
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation / Negligence Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Workmen's Compensation, Conclusiveness of Administrative Findings, Third Party Liability, Subrogation, Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort (negligence) Administrative Law Workmen's Compensation Conclusiveness of Administrative Findings Third Party Liability Subrogation Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliva Rossignol

Plaintiff Appellant

Rodolphe Rossignol

Plaintiff Appellant

Moe Hart

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation / Negligence Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a determination by the Workmen's Compensation Board that an employee suffered no injury is conclusive and binding in a subsequent negligence action against a co-employee
  2. 2 Whether a third party not before the Board is precluded from litigating negligence by the Board's finding
  3. 3 Whether the Board's statutory powers and subrogation provisions effect a novation of the employee's common law claim

Ratio Decidendi

A determination by the Workmen's Compensation Board that an employee sustained no injury is not conclusive or binding in a subsequent common law negligence action against a co-employee; the Board's findings do not bar third-party actions in the absence of clear statutory provision making such findings binding on those third parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Question answered in the negative