Guillot v. Lefaivre

Guillot v. Lefaivre

The appellant was a subcontractor under a lump-sum agreement who hired and paid his own helpers; therefore he was not a 'workman' rendering services to the bankrupt within the meaning of s.121 and the wages he paid to his employees are not included in compensation entitled to priority under that section.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1946] SCR 335
Parties
Appellant: David Guillot; Respondents: R. Ernest Lefaivre and Other; Bankrupt: Éléodore Rousseau
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 1946
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy and Insolvency / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench (quebec), Affirming Superior Court Sitting in Bankruptcy Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgments below affirmed.
Legal Topics
Priority of Claims, Workmen's Compensation, Subcontractor V. Workman, Statutory Interpretation of S.121 Bankruptcy Act
Source Language
english
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Priority of Claims Workmen's Compensation Subcontractor V. Workman Statutory Interpretation of S.121 Bankruptcy Act

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Guillot

Appellant

R. Ernest Lefaivre and Other

Respondents

Éléodore Rousseau

Bankrupt

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy and Insolvency / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench (quebec), Affirming Superior Court Sitting in Bankruptcy Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a 'workman' within s.121 of the Bankruptcy Act
  2. 2 Whether 'compensation' under s.121 includes wages paid by the claimant to helpers
  3. 3 Whether a lump-sum subcontractor can claim priority as a workman for services rendered to the bankrupt

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was a subcontractor under a lump-sum agreement who hired and paid his own helpers; therefore he was not a 'workman' rendering services to the bankrupt within the meaning of s.121 and the wages he paid to his employees are not included in compensation entitled to priority under that section.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgments below affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgments of the Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side) and Superior Court sitting in bankruptcy affirmed