Landry v. Lapointe

Landry v. Lapointe

Because the trial judge's oral reasons, once included in the record, demonstrated that he preferred the plaintiff's evidence and made factual findings based on having seen and heard witnesses, the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its own view of the evidence; the proper remedy is to restore the Superior Court judgment awarding the commissions and related amounts.

Citation
[1980] 2 SCR 412
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Charlemagne Landry; Respondent / Defendant: Jean Lapointe
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 1980
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside and judgment of the Superior Court restored with costs against respondent.
Legal Topics
Commission Payable to Agent, Assessment of Witness Credibility, Oral Reasons of Trial Judge, Appellate Non‑intervention in Findings of Fact, Substitution of Trial Judge's Findings
Source Language
English
Contract Agency Evidence Civil Procedure Appeals Commission Payable to Agent Assessment of Witness Credibility Oral Reasons of Trial Judge +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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlemagne Landry

Appellant / Plaintiff

Jean Lapointe

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent owed appellant a commission for 1973-74.
  2. 2 Whether appellant was a party to the 1973-74 contract and entitled to commission.
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its assessment of credibility for the trial judge in absence of the trial judge's reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Because the trial judge's oral reasons, once included in the record, demonstrated that he preferred the plaintiff's evidence and made factual findings based on having seen and heard witnesses, the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its own view of the evidence; the proper remedy is to restore the Superior Court judgment awarding the commissions and related amounts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside and judgment of the Superior Court restored with costs against respondent.

Orders

  • Set aside judgment of the Court of Appeal of Quebec.
  • Restore judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec awarding plaintiff $5,100 with interest and costs.