Loubier v. Vallerand et al.
- Citation
- [1977] 1 SCR 713
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 12 March 1976
- Posture
- Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Judgment Setting Aside Superior Court and Condemning Appellant to Damages)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 12 March 1976
- Posture
- Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Judgment Setting Aside Superior Court and Condemning Appellant to Damages)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court allowed the appeal because the Court of Appeal improperly disturbed the Superior Court's findings of fact; the presumption of fault under s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act is a factual matter for the trial judge and absent a basis to overturn those findings the trial judgment dismissing the action must be restored.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the Superior Court restored; action dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside
- Judgment of the Superior Court restored
- Costs awarded to the appellant in this Court and in the Court of Appeal against the respondents
02
Material facts
Parties
Jean-Paul Loubier
Appellant Counsel: Richard ClicheGérard Vallerand
Respondent Counsel: Richard Roy; Roger LefebvreÉmillienne Gilbert
Respondent Counsel: Richard Roy; Roger Lefebvre03
Procedural history
Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal From the Court of Appeal for Quebec to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Judgment Setting Aside Superior Court and Condemning Appellant to Damages)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the statutory presumption of fault under the Highway Victims Indemnity Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 32, s. 3, applied to impose liability on the owner
- 02
Whether the Court of Appeal should have disturbed the trial judge's findings of fact in a negligence action
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued the trial judge's factual findings should stand, that the presumption of fault did not require condemning the owner, and that the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view of the facts.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued the presumption of fault under s.3 applied and that the Court of Appeal was entitled to set aside the Superior Court and impose damages on the appellant.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada in Loubier v. Vallerand, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 713
Appellate courts must not interfere with a trial judge's findings of fact absent palpable and overriding error.
- 02
Highway Victims Indemnity Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 32, s. 3; adopted by Supreme Court of Canada in this judgment
The application of a statutory presumption of fault under the Highway Victims Indemnity Act is a question of fact for the trial judge to determine.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court allowed the appeal because the Court of Appeal improperly disturbed the Superior Court's findings of fact; the presumption of fault under s.3 of the Highway Victims Indemnity Act is a factual matter for the trial judge and absent a basis to overturn those findings the trial judgment dismissing the action must be restored.
Obiter and limits
- The Court expressly agreed with the dissenting reasons of Montgomery J.A. in the Court of Appeal regarding deference to trial findings of fact.
- Costs awarded to the successful appellant in this Court and in the Court of Appeal were proper given the disposition.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the Superior Court restored; action dismissed.
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Court of Appeal set aside
- Judgment of the Superior Court restored
- Costs awarded to the appellant in this Court and in the Court of Appeal against the respondents
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 12 March 1976
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.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 12 March 1976
Loubier v. Vallerand et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1976-03-12 Report [1977] 1 SCR 713 Judges Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Quebec Subjects Motor vehicles Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Loubier v. Vallerand et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 713 Date: 1976-03-12 Jean-Paul Loubier Appellant; and Gérard Vallerand and Émillienne Gilbert Respondents. 1976: March 12. Present: Martland, Judson, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR QUEBEC Motor vehicles—Negligence—Collision with child—Presumption of fault against owner of vehicle—Question of fact—Appeal Courts should not intervene—Highway Victims Indemnity Act, R.S.Q. 1964, c. 32, s.
3. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Quebec, setting aside a judgment of the Superior Court and condemning appellant to damages. Appeal allowed with costs, judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the action restored. Richard Cliche, for the appellant. Richard Roy and Roger Lefebvre, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We are all in agreement with the reasons of Montgomery J.A. dissenting in the Court of Appeal. Therefore the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of the Superior Court is restored with costs in this Court and in the Court of Appeal against the respondents. Appeal allowed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Cliche & Laflamme, St-Joseph de Beauce, Quebec. Solicitors for the respondents: Roy & Lefebvre, Thetford Mines, Quebec.
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.