Bélanger v. Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co.

Bélanger v. Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co.

Majority held appellant failed to prove employer's conduct reached the exceptional standard of 'inexcusable fault' because there was no satisfactory evidence of any practicable guard or other protection known to and available to the employer, the employer had a stop mechanism provided, inspectors had not required guarding, and the circumstances did not establish the requisite knowledge/volition to elevate the omission to inexcusable fault; therefore augmentation of statutory compensation was not warranted.

Citation
(1922) 63 SCR 384
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Emile Belanger; Respondent / Defendant: Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 March 1922
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Workmen's Compensation Act / Supreme Court of Canada Hearing on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed; Idington J. dissenting.
Legal Topics
Inexcusable Fault, Machine Guarding, Employer Duty to Provide Safeguards, Damages Assessment, Workplace Instruction
Source Language
English
Labour Law Tort Occupational Safety Statutory Compensation Law Inexcusable Fault Machine Guarding Employer Duty to Provide Safeguards Damages Assessment +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emile Belanger

Appellant / Plaintiff

Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Workmen's Compensation Act / Supreme Court of Canada Hearing on Appeal From Court of King's Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employer committed 'inexcusable fault' under art. 7325 R.S.Q.
  2. 2 Whether omission to provide a practicable guard or other known safety device rendered the employer's fault inexcusable
  3. 3 Whether assignment of an inexperienced worker without instruction constituted inexcusable fault

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held appellant failed to prove employer's conduct reached the exceptional standard of 'inexcusable fault' because there was no satisfactory evidence of any practicable guard or other protection known to and available to the employer, the employer had a stop mechanism provided, inspectors had not required guarding, and the circumstances did not establish the requisite knowledge/volition to elevate the omission to inexcusable fault; therefore augmentation of statutory compensation was not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of King's Bench affirmed; Idington J. dissenting.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King's Bench (Q.R. 32 K.B. 44) affirmed