Veilleux c. Marineau

Veilleux c. Marineau

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the proposed amendment to the writ and declaration because it is preferable to permit the amendment and defer any adjudication on prescription until the amendment is made and contested by appropriate means; courts should abstain from deciding potential loss of right of action by prescription prior to joinder of the new defendant.

Citation
[1969] RCS 861
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Thérèse Veilleux; Respondent / Defendant: Robert Marineau; Proposed Defendant: Valmore Lampron
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 June 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Damages (tort/death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Motion to Amend Writ and Declaration
Outcome
Appeal allowed; motion to amend writ and declaration granted
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Interruption of Prescription, Solidary Liability, Statutory Limitation for Death Claims, Court Discretion to Raise Prescription Ex Officio
Source Language
French
Civil Procedure Prescription / Limitation Law Tort Law Succession / Death Claims Amendment of Pleadings Interruption of Prescription Solidary Liability Statutory Limitation for Death Claims +1 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thérèse Veilleux

Appellant / Plaintiff

Robert Marineau

Respondent / Defendant

Valmore Lampron

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Damages (tort/death) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada on Motion to Amend Writ and Declaration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff may amend the writ and declaration to add a joint and several defendant after the statutory period
  2. 2 Whether interruption of prescription by service/assignment applies to claims arising under Civil Code art.1056 (one-year limitation for death)
  3. 3 Whether courts should decide prescription issues before a new defendant has been joined

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered the proposed amendment to the writ and declaration because it is preferable to permit the amendment and defer any adjudication on prescription until the amendment is made and contested by appropriate means; courts should abstain from deciding potential loss of right of action by prescription prior to joinder of the new defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; motion to amend writ and declaration granted

Orders

  • Judgment of Court of Appeal varied and judgment of Superior Court reformed to permit the amendment of the writ and the declaration as requested by the plaintiff
  • Costs of the incident and of the appeals reserved to the trial judge