Morand v. Paquin
- Citation
- [1976] 1 SCR 284
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 19 December 1974
- Posture
- Appeal (civil) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 19 December 1974
- Posture
- Appeal (civil) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the Superior Court was correct to order the respondent to render accounts and to reduce the appellant's claim in light of its interpretation of Civil Code art. 1425 and adverse findings on the respondent's credibility, and therefore quashed the Court of Appeal judgment and reinstated the Superior Court judgment.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal quashed; Superior Court judgment reinstated
Orders
- Quash judgment of the Court of Appeal [1973] C.A. 211
- Reinstate the Superior Court judgment ordering the respondent to render an account and reflecting the reduced claim as interpreted under Civil Code art. 1425
- Award costs to the appellant in all courts
02
Material facts
Parties
Gertrude Morand
Plaintiff Appellant Counsel: Jules DupréGeorges Paquin
Defendant Respondent Counsel: Jean Lefrançois03
Procedural history
Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the husband is bound to surrender fruits consumed prior to dissolution of marriage under Civil Code art. 1425
- 02
Whether the respondent must render an account to the appellant
- 03
Whether the respondent's testimony is credible and suffices to defeat the accounting claim
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant (wife) argued that the respondent (husband) was required to render full accounts and to account for fruits under Civil Code art. 1425, and that the Superior Court order should be upheld.
- Respondent
- The respondent contested the account and disputed liability; he relied on his testimony to defeat the accounting claim and on a restrictive interpretation of art. 1425 to avoid surrendering fruits consumed prior to dissolution.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada decision in Morand v. Paquin [1976] 1 S.C.R. 284
A spouse ordered to render accounts must do so and adverse credibility findings can justify allowance of the accounting claim
- 02
Civil Code of Quebec, art. 1425 (repealed)
Interpretation of Civil Code article 1425 governs entitlement to fruits during marriage (article noted as repealed)
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the Superior Court was correct to order the respondent to render accounts and to reduce the appellant's claim in light of its interpretation of Civil Code art. 1425 and adverse findings on the respondent's credibility, and therefore quashed the Court of Appeal judgment and reinstated the Superior Court judgment.
Obiter and limits
- Article 1425 of the Civil Code is noted as repealed but its interpretation was relevant to the accounting issue in this case
- Costs were awarded to the appellant in all courts as a consequence of the appeal decision
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal quashed; Superior Court judgment reinstated
- Quash judgment of the Court of Appeal [1973] C.A. 211
- Reinstate the Superior Court judgment ordering the respondent to render an account and reflecting the reduced claim as interpreted under Civil Code art. 1425
- Award costs to the appellant in all courts
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 19 December 1974
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· 19 December 1974
Morand v. Paquin Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1974-12-19 Report [1976] 1 SCR 284 Judges Ritchie, Roland Almon; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe On appeal from Quebec Subjects Bills of exchange Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Morand v. Paquin, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 284 Date: 1974-12-19 Gertrude Morand (Plaintiff) Appellant; and Georges Paquin (Defendant) Respondent. 1974: October 23; 1974: December 19. Present: Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Accounting—Contestation of account—Whether husband is bound to give up fruits which have been consumed up to the time marriage is dissolved—Civil Code, art. 1425, now repealed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec[1] setting aside a judgment of the Superior Court which allowed an action to render accounts. Appeal allowed. Jules Dupré, for the plaintiff, appellant. Jean Lefrançois, for the defendant, respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered by BEETZ J.—I am of the same opinion as Montgomery J., dissenting in the Court of Appeal. Respondent appeared twice in the Superior Court. The first time, he was ordered to render an account to appellant, his wife separate as to property, and the second time, his account was
contested. Neither of the trial judges appear to have believed his testimony. The case also concerned interpretation of art. 1425 of the Civil Code, now repealed. The Superior Court did this, reducing the claim of appellant. I would allow the appeal, quash the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reinstate the terms of the judgment of the Superior Court, with costs in all Courts. Appeal allowed with costs. Solicitors for the plaintiff, appellant: Dupré & Gagnon, Montreal. Solicitors for the defendant, respondent: Geoffrion, Prud’homme, Chevrier & Cardinal, Montreal. [1] [1973] C.A. 211.
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.