The King v. Moreau

The King v. Moreau

The petitioner failed to prove, as required by Exchequer Court Act s.19(c), that the injuries resulted from the negligence of a Crown servant acting within the scope of his duties; the presence of the fuse in the ditch was left to conjecture and any presumptions were not 'serious, precise and concordant'; therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1950] SCR 18
Parties
Appellant (crown): His Majesty The King (Appellant); Respondent (tutor on Behalf of Minor J. G. Moreau): J. B. Moreau (Respondent)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1949
Procedural Posture
Petition of Right (crown Liability for Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (judgment Below Reversed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; petition of right dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court reversed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Crown Liability, Onus of Proof, Presumptions, Scope of Duties or Employment, Petition of Right, Contributory Negligence
Source Language
english
Tort Public Law Military Law Negligence Crown Liability Onus of Proof Presumptions Scope of Duties or Employment +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

His Majesty The King (Appellant)

Appellant (crown)

J. B. Moreau (Respondent)

Respondent (tutor on Behalf of Minor J. G. Moreau)

Procedural Posture

Petition of Right (crown Liability for Negligence) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada (judgment Below Reversed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown was liable for injuries caused by an explosive fuse found in a public ditch
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the burden of proving negligence of a servant of the Crown acting within the scope of his duties under s.19(c) Exchequer Court Act
  3. 3 Whether factual inferences from the presence of the fuse amount to sufficient presumptions to establish Crown negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner failed to prove, as required by Exchequer Court Act s.19(c), that the injuries resulted from the negligence of a Crown servant acting within the scope of his duties; the presence of the fuse in the ditch was left to conjecture and any presumptions were not 'serious, precise and concordant'; therefore Crown liability was not established and the petition of right must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; petition of right dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Petition of right dismissed with costs; judgment of Exchequer Court reversed