City of Montreal v. Cadieux

City of Montreal v. Cadieux

The majority held that despite concurrent findings below, the record contained evidence (including the city officials' report and treasurer's testimony) demonstrating a gross injustice to the appellant and justifying reversal; consequently the plaintiff's claim for the balance was dismissed and the appeal allowed with costs.

Citation
(1899) 29 SCR 616
Parties
Defendant/appellant: City of Montreal; Plaintiff/respondent: Hector G. Cadieux
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 June 1899
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Concurrent Findings of Fact, Quantum Meruit, Appellate Review of Facts, Expropriation, Payment on Account
Source Language
English
Evidence Municipal Law Contract Civil Procedure Concurrent Findings of Fact Quantum Meruit Appellate Review of Facts Expropriation +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Montreal

Defendant/appellant

Hector G. Cadieux

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower Canada (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellate court may reverse concurrent findings of fact made by two lower courts
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the balance on a quantum meruit for services claimed
  3. 3 Whether the services were authorized, required or used by the City

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that despite concurrent findings below, the record contained evidence (including the city officials' report and treasurer's testimony) demonstrating a gross injustice to the appellant and justifying reversal; consequently the plaintiff's claim for the balance was dismissed and the appeal allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench and Superior Court reversed.