Chartrand v. Tremblay

Chartrand v. Tremblay

The appeal was allowed in part: because the 3 September 1947 engagement was void under art.1265 and formed part of the same transaction as the 4 September quittance, the quittance could not be relied upon to bar an accounting; the husband must render a detailed sworn account within 90 days, but the alternative condemnation to pay a lump sum in default of rendering accounts was struck out because a monetary judgment cannot substitute for a judicial determination of liability and the proper computation of accounts.

Citation
[1958] SCR 99
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Frederic Chartrand; Plaintiff/respondent: Dame Angelina Tremblay
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 1957
Procedural Posture
Action for Accounting / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part without costs before this Court; appellant ordered to render accounts but alternative monetary condemnation struck out
Legal Topics
Accounting, Separate as to Property, Quittance/release Nullity, Condemnation in Default of Accounting, Mandatary/curator Duties
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Property Law Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Contract Law Accounting Separate as to Property Quittance/release Nullity +2 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederic Chartrand

Defendant/appellant

Dame Angelina Tremblay

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Accounting / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant who refuses to render an account can be condemned to pay a sum in default of accounting before liability and the accounts have been judicially determined
  2. 2 Whether the quittance of 4 September 1947 is null because it is part of the same transaction as the void 3 September 1947 engagement
  3. 3 Whether husband who administered wife's property as curator and mandatary must render an account and to what extent Civil Code art.1425 limits liability for consumed fruits

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part: because the 3 September 1947 engagement was void under art.1265 and formed part of the same transaction as the 4 September quittance, the quittance could not be relied upon to bar an accounting; the husband must render a detailed sworn account within 90 days, but the alternative condemnation to pay a lump sum in default of rendering accounts was struck out because a monetary judgment cannot substitute for a judicial determination of liability and the proper computation of accounts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part without costs before this Court; appellant ordered to render accounts but alternative monetary condemnation struck out

Orders

  • Appellant ordered to render a detailed sworn account of his administration as curator and subsequently as mandatary within 90 days
  • Alternative condemnation to pay $19,305.42 (or any lump sum in default of accounting) struck out