Picard v. Warren

Picard v. Warren

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent had not been deprived of the jury right under Art. 442 C.P.; tacit consent by the parties to late pleadings meant the 30‑day period had not begun to run, so the right to trial by jury continued; furthermore, a decision on the right to a jury trial is substantive and jurisdictional and constitutes a final judgment for appeal purposes.

Citation
[1952] 2 SCR 433
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Louis Philippe Picard; Plaintiff Respondent: Pierre Warren
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 June 1952
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (jury Trial Dispute) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Loss of Jury Right Under Art. 442 C.p., Forclusion and Pleading Delays, Tacit Consent to Extension of Procedural Delays, Finality and Jurisdiction of Orders on Mode of Trial
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Jury Trial Quebec Civil Law Appeal and Jurisdiction Loss of Jury Right Under Art. 442 C.p. Forclusion and Pleading Delays Tacit Consent to Extension of Procedural Delays Finality and Jurisdiction of Orders on Mode of Trial

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Philippe Picard

Defendant Appellant

Pierre Warren

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (jury Trial Dispute) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was in default under Art. 442 C.P. and thus lost right to jury trial
  2. 2 When a case 'stands ready for trial' for the purposes of Art. 442 C.P.
  3. 3 Whether tacit consent to late filing of plea prevented commencement of the 30‑day period

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent had not been deprived of the jury right under Art. 442 C.P.; tacit consent by the parties to late pleadings meant the 30‑day period had not begun to run, so the right to trial by jury continued; furthermore, a decision on the right to a jury trial is substantive and jurisdictional and constitutes a final judgment for appeal purposes.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs