Ayoub v. Beaupré

Ayoub v. Beaupré

The employee failed to exercise the very high degree of care demanded by the dangerous operation of draining gasoline (multiple small negligent acts in combination caused the fire); the employer Beaupré is vicariously liable for those acts; because the fire resulted from negligence it was not "accidental" under The Accidental Fires Act, so that statutory defence failed; appeals allowed and judgments for appellants with damages to be assessed.

Citation
[1964] SCR 448
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Salim Ayoub; Plaintiff/appellant: Russell McMurtry; Plaintiff/appellant: Lorna Knight; Plaintiff/appellant: Helen Neelands; Plaintiff/appellant: Empire Wallpaper and Paint Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Emile Beaupre; Defendant/respondent: Walter Bense
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 April 1964
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence (appeal) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Below Dismissed and Appeal Allowed Here
Outcome
Appeals allowed; judgments entered for appellants; reference to assess damages; costs to appellants throughout.
Legal Topics
Fire Damage, Duty of Care, Standard of Care for Dangerous Operations, Employer Liability, Accidental Fires Act
Source Language
English
Torts Negligence Vicarious Liability Statutory Defence Fire Damage Duty of Care Standard of Care for Dangerous Operations Employer Liability +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salim Ayoub

Plaintiff/appellant

Russell McMurtry

Plaintiff/appellant

Lorna Knight

Plaintiff/appellant

Helen Neelands

Plaintiff/appellant

Empire Wallpaper and Paint Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Emile Beaupre

Defendant/respondent

Walter Bense

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence (appeal) / On Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada; Judgment Below Dismissed and Appeal Allowed Here

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employee and employer were negligent in handling gasoline leading to fire
  2. 2 What standard of care applies to dangerous operations involving gasoline
  3. 3 Whether the defendant employer is vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The employee failed to exercise the very high degree of care demanded by the dangerous operation of draining gasoline (multiple small negligent acts in combination caused the fire); the employer Beaupré is vicariously liable for those acts; because the fire resulted from negligence it was not "accidental" under The Accidental Fires Act, so that statutory defence failed; appeals allowed and judgments for appellants with damages to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; judgments entered for appellants; reference to assess damages; costs to appellants throughout.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed with costs throughout
  • Judgment for the appellants in each of the three actions