Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Champagne v. Labrie

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The trial judge and the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, made concurrent factual findings based on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence that the appellant's black car struck the child; absent error this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, and on the balance of probabilities liability was established — appeal dismissed.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side affirmed.
  • Action maintained against Thérèse Champagne for $32,457.15; action against the owner dismissed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Thérèse Champagne

Defendant Appellant Counsel: W. Desjardins, Q.C.; A. Desjardins

Germain Labrie

Plaintiff Respondent Counsel: S. Laverdière, Q.C.; J. Turgeom, Q.C.

Amounts and remedies

  • Damages Claimed by Plaintiff: CAD 109,492.15
  • Amount Action Maintained Against Thérèse Champagne: CAD 32,457.15

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Personal Injury Motor Vehicle / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec (final Appellate Stage)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Appellant denied knowledge of the accident and argued the evidence was insufficient to prove on the balance of probabilities that her car struck the child, urging interference by this Court.
Respondent
Respondent relied on eyewitness testimony that a black car was seen at the scene, that there was no other traffic, and that the appellant was driving a black car, arguing those facts permitted the inference that the appellant's vehicle struck the child and established negligence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)

    Civil liability in tort is established on the balance of probabilities.

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment)

    Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts will not be disturbed by this Court absent palpable and overriding error.

  3. 03

    Supreme Court of Canada (this judgment) and Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 142, s. 53

    An inference of causation may be drawn from circumstantial evidence when it is the only reasonable explanation of the facts.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The trial judge and the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, made concurrent factual findings based on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence that the appellant's black car struck the child; absent error this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact, and on the balance of probabilities liability was established — appeal dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • When there is unanimity on findings of fact between courts below this Court will not intervene.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side affirmed.
  • Action maintained against Thérèse Champagne for $32,457.15; action against the owner dismissed.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 24 April 1962

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 24 April 1962

[1962] SCR 549

Champagne v. Labrie Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1962-04-24 Report [1962] SCR 549 Judges Taschereau, Robert; Fauteux, Joseph Honoré Gérald; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred On appeal from Quebec Subjects Motor vehicles Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Champagne v. Labrie, [1962] S.C.R. 549 Date: 1962-04-24 Thérèse Champagne (Defendant) Appellant; and Germain Labrie (Plaintiff) Respondent. 1962: February 21; 1962: April 24. Present: Taschereau, Fauteux, Abbott, Martland and Judson JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC. Motor Vehicles—Child found injured on road—Defendant's car only one travelling on the road—Inference drawn by trial judge—Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 142, s.

53. The plaintiff's three year old son was injured when he was struck by an automobile on a quiet country road. The boy was playing near the road at the time. Witnesses testified that they heard a noise, that they saw the child lying on the road, and that they saw a black car driving away. There was no other traffic. The defendant had driven a black car on that road at that time but denied any knowledge of the accident. The trial judge came to the conclusion, upon the evidence, that it was the black car driven by the defendant which had struck the child. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The defendant appealed to this Court. Held: The appeal should be dismissed. There were concurrent findings of facts and this Court could not interfere. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec1, affirming a judgment of Girouard J. Appeal dismissed. W. Desjardins, Q.C., and A. Desjardins, for the defendant, appellant. S. Laverdière, Q.C., and J. Turgeom, Q.C., for the plaintiff, respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Taschereau J.:—Il s'agit d'un accident, où le jeune Gilles Labrie, âgé de trois ans aurait été frappé par une automobile, et sérieusement blessé. Le père de l'enfant a été ès-qual dûment autorisé à instituer les présentes procédures et il a réclamé de H. Champagne, propriétaire de la voiture, et de Thérèse

Champagne qui conduisait le véhicule, conjointement et solidairement, la somme de $109,492.15. La Cour supérieure a maintenu l'action jusqu'à concurrence de $32,457.15 contre Thérèse Champagne, et l'a rejetée quant au propriétaire. La Cour du banc de la reine2 qui n'a été saisie que de l'appel de Thérèse Champagne, a confirmé le jugement. Le dossier révèle que le jeune Champagne était à jouer sur le bord de la route, dans la paroisse de St-Magloire, où il a été vu par plusieurs personnes vis-à-vis la résidence des Labrie, et quelques instants plus tard, il a été retrouvé sur le pavé, grièvement blessé. Les témoins Labrie, Mme Arthur Racine établissent qu'ils ont entendu un bruit, qu'ils ont vu l'enfant étendu sur la rue, les jambes sur l'accotement—on vit également une auto noire qui montait dans la direction de la maison Champagne—il n'y en avait pas d'autre sur la route, et il est clair que c'est Thérèse Champagne qui conduisait cette voiture, modèle 1948. Le juge au procès est arrivé à la conclusion, d'après l'ensemble de toutes les circonstances, que c'est Thérèse Champagne qui a frappé cet enfant, et la Cour du banc de la reine a partagé cette opinion—on s'est basé tel qu'on devait le faire, sur la balance des probabilités, et je ne vois pas, quand il y a unanimité sur les faits, que cette Cour puisse intervenir. Comme la Cour du banc de la reine, je suis d'opinion qu'il n'y a pas lieu de réduire le montant des dommages accordés. L'appel doit être rejeté avec dépens. Appeal dismissed with costs. Attorneys for the defendant, appellant: Desjardins & Desjardins, Quebec. Attorney for the plaintiff, respondent: Simon Laverdière, Quebec. 1 [1961] Que. Q.B. 480. 2 [1961] Que. Q.B. 480.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

[1961] Que. Q.B. 480

Case cited

[1962] S.C.R. 549

Case cited

Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 142, s. 53

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.