Royal Victoria Hospital et al. v. Morrow

Royal Victoria Hospital et al. v. Morrow

The Court held that hearsay is generally inadmissible in civil cases by necessary implication from Civil Code art.1205 read with the Code of Civil Procedure; the two conversations did not qualify as res gestae because they were not part of the facts constituting the alleged wrong; the first conversation was inadmissible but the second (June 1960) should have been received under reserve as it might constitute an extra‑judicial admission under art.1244; admissibility against the hospital on agency grounds must await the merits determination.

Citation
[1974] SCR 501
Parties
Appellants/defendants: Royal Victoria Hospital et al.; Respondent/plaintiff: Mary Morrow
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1973
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Medical Negligence/damages / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side); Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Out of Court Statements During Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Court of Appeal judgment varied to restore Superior Court interlocutory judgment except that objection was reserved as to statements of June 1960
Legal Topics
Hearsay Rule, Res Gestae, Extra Judicial Admissions, Admissibility of Statements by Deceased, Examination of Witnesses, Hospital Records
Source Language
English
Evidence Civil Procedure Medical Malpractice Agency/vicarious Liability Hearsay Rule Res Gestae Extra Judicial Admissions Admissibility of Statements by Deceased +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Victoria Hospital et al.

Appellants/defendants

Mary Morrow

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Medical Negligence/damages / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (appeal Side); Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Out of Court Statements During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parol evidence of statements made by the deceased treating doctor to the plaintiff's mother is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the res gestae exception applies to those conversations
  3. 3 Whether extra-judicial admissions of a now-deceased person are admissible under Civil Code art.1244

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that hearsay is generally inadmissible in civil cases by necessary implication from Civil Code art.1205 read with the Code of Civil Procedure; the two conversations did not qualify as res gestae because they were not part of the facts constituting the alleged wrong; the first conversation was inadmissible but the second (June 1960) should have been received under reserve as it might constitute an extra‑judicial admission under art.1244; admissibility against the hospital on agency grounds must await the merits determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Court of Appeal judgment varied to restore Superior Court interlocutory judgment except that objection was reserved as to statements of June 1960

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part
  • Restore Superior Court interlocutory judgment sustaining objection to evidence of statements allegedly made by Dr. Cameron to Mrs. Clare Morrow, except that objection is reserved as to statements allegedly made in June 1960