Lapierre v. City of Montreal

Lapierre v. City of Montreal

The appeal is dismissed because at the time the victim instituted proceedings against the vehicle owners the City's liability had been extinguished by the six‑month prescription in art.45 of the City's Charter, so there was no existing solidary obligation between the City and the vehicle owners vis‑à‑vis the victim and consequently no basis for a recourse action under art.1118; additionally, there is significant doubt that the alleged quasi‑delicts were of the same nature to establish solidarity.

Citation
[1959] SCR 434
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Marcel Lapierre; Defendant Respondent: City of Montreal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Joint and Several Liability, Action Récursoire (contribution/recourse), Municipal Statutory Limitation, Negligence (failure to Replace Stop Sign)
Source Language
English
Torts Municipal Liability Civil Procedure Prescription (limitation) Joint and Several Liability Action Récursoire (contribution/recourse) Municipal Statutory Limitation Negligence (failure to Replace Stop Sign)

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marcel Lapierre

Plaintiff Appellant

City of Montreal

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff who settled victim's claim can claim contribution from the City as a joint tort‑feasor
  2. 2 Whether the City’s liability was extinguished by the six‑month prescription in art.45 of the Charter of the City of Montreal before the victim sued the vehicle owners
  3. 3 Whether joint and several liability existed between the vehicle owners and the City (whether the quasi‑delicts were the same in nature)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because at the time the victim instituted proceedings against the vehicle owners the City's liability had been extinguished by the six‑month prescription in art.45 of the City's Charter, so there was no existing solidary obligation between the City and the vehicle owners vis‑à‑vis the victim and consequently no basis for a recourse action under art.1118; additionally, there is significant doubt that the alleged quasi‑delicts were of the same nature to establish solidarity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.