Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the attending physician was found not to have been at fault, the action against the hospital must follow that outcome and the hospital cannot be held liable.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; trial judgment restored dismissing respondents' action against the hospital; no costs.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Reverse the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal
  • Restore the trial judgment dismissing the respondents' action against Hôpital Le Gardeur
  • Appeal allowed without costs

02

Material facts

Parties

Hôpital Le Gardeur

Appellant Counsel: Pierre Bélanger; Michel Robert

Gabrielle Imbeault-Lapointe

Respondent Counsel: Jean-Pierre Pilon; Yvan Major

Paul-Émile Lapointe (in his personal capacity and as tutor to his minor daughter Nancy Lapointe)

Respondent Counsel: Jean-Pierre Pilon; Yvan Major

Amounts and remedies

  • Case Number: 21,698
  • Report Year: 1,992

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Torts Medical Malpractice / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Quebec Court of Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The hospital cannot be held liable because the attending physician was found not at fault; any liability of the hospital depends on physician fault.
Respondent
The respondents alleged medical malpractice and argued the hospital was liable and the Court of Appeal found both the physician and the hospital liable.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Supreme Court of Canada, Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 382

    Liability of a hospital in this context must follow the outcome of the action against the attending physician; if the physician is not at fault the hospital cannot be held liable.

  2. 02

    Supreme Court of Canada, Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 382

    Courts should avoid issuing obiter rulings on broad and important questions when the dispositive issue resolves the appeal.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the attending physician was found not to have been at fault, the action against the hospital must follow that outcome and the hospital cannot be held liable.

Obiter and limits

  • The broader questions and various theories of hospital liability argued would be obiter in these circumstances and inappropriate to decide.
  • It would be neither wise nor appropriate to undertake a review of such important matters when the dispositive issue is the physician's lack of fault.

Court disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal judgment reversed; trial judgment restored dismissing respondents' action against the hospital; no costs.

  • Allow the appeal
  • Reverse the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal
  • Restore the trial judgment dismissing the respondents' action against Hôpital Le Gardeur
  • Appeal allowed without costs

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 13 February 1992

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 13 February 1992

[1992] 1 SCR 382

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1992-02-13 Report [1992] 1 SCR 382 Case number 21698 Judges Lamer, Antonio; L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Sopinka, John; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret On appeal from Quebec Subjects Torts Notes SCC Case Information: 21698 Decision Content Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 382 Hôpital Le Gardeur Appellant v. Gabrielle Imbeault‑Lapointe and Paul‑Émile Lapointe, in his personal capacity and as tutor to his minor daughter Nancy Lapointe Respondents Indexed as: Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur File No.: 21698. 1991: October 3; 1992: February 13. Present: Lamer C.J. and L'Heureux‑Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier and Cory JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec Civil responsibility ‑‑ Hospital ‑‑ Action against doctor and hospital ‑‑ No fault on part of doctor ‑‑ Action against hospital dismissed. Alleging medical malpractice, respondents brought an action for damages against a doctor and the appellant hospital. The Superior Court found no fault on the part of the doctor and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal reversed this judgment and found both the doctor and the hospital liable. In the companion appeal, Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 000, this Court allowed the doctor's appeal. Held: The appeal should be allowed. The action against the hospital must follow the outcome of the action against the doctor. Since the doctor was found not to have been at fault, the hospital cannot be held liable. Cases Cited Applied: Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R.

000. APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, [1989] R.J.Q. 2619, 25 Q.A.C. 33, 2 C.C.L.T. (2d) 97, reversing a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing respondents' action against appellant. Appeal allowed. Pierre Bélanger and Michel Robert, for the appellant. Jean‑Pierre Pilon and Yvan Major, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered by //L'Heureux-Dubé J.// L'Heureux‑Dubé J. -- This appeal was argued concurrently with the appeal by Dr. Chevrette, a physician on emergency duty at the Hôpital Le Gardeur who administered emergency care to Nancy Lapointe, the respondents' daughter. Alleging fault by Dr. Chevrette, the respondents sued both Dr. Chevrette and the hospital. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' action against Dr. Chevrette as well as the hospital, hence the appeal brought by each of them, appeals that were argued concurrently. In a judgment rendered today this Court allowed the appeal brought by Dr. Chevrette, reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and affirmed the judgment of the trial judge dismissing the respondents' action against Dr. Chevrette, concluding he was not at fault: Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R.

000. The respondents' action against the hospital must necessarily follow the outcome of that brought against Dr. Chevrette. The hospital could only be liable, whether legally, delictually or contractually, depending on the thesis retained, in the event that Dr. Chevrette was found to be at fault. All these important and highly interesting questions, as well as various theories put forward in this area, were argued in this Court, but always from the perspective of professional fault on the part of Dr. Chevrette. As Dr. Chevrette was not found liable, this Court has nothing further to decide except to allow the appellant hospital's appeal from the Court of Appeal's judgment. Any other question which the parties might wish this Court to decide or which the Court might be inclined to consider would only be obiter in the circumstances. I am of the view that, however tempting it might be, it would be neither wise nor appropriate to undertake a review of such important matters in this context. I would accordingly allow the appeal, reverse the Court of Appeal's judgment and restore the trial judgment, the whole without costs throughout. Appeal allowed without costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Langlois, Robert, Montréal. Solicitors for the respondents: Pilon & Lagacé, Montréal.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 000

Case cited

Lapointe v. Hôpital Le Gardeur, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 382

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.