Montreal Tramways Co. v. Guérard

Montreal Tramways Co. v. Guérard

Proceedings after the plaintiff’s majority were not null where (1) no notification of change of status had been given (so proceedings remain valid until such notice) and (2) the appellate court later authorised the father to continue as curator, which regularised prior irregularity; additionally, the new evidence did not satisfy the statutory requirement of being conclusive and therefore did not warrant a new trial, so the appellate and trial judgments were affirmed.

Citation
[1939] SCR 454
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Montreal Tramways Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Rosario Guérard, ès-nom et ès-qual.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1939
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (petition in Revocation / Requête Civile) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on Jurisdictional Preliminaries and Merits of Requête Civile
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King’s Bench and the trial judge affirmed.
Legal Topics
Nullity of Proceedings, Change of Party Status and Notification, Reprise D’instance, Petition in Revocation, New Evidence/new Trial, Solidary Liability
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Capacity/minority Law Appeals Nullity of Proceedings Change of Party Status and Notification Reprise D’instance Petition in Revocation +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montreal Tramways Company

Defendant/appellant

Rosario Guérard, ès-nom et ès-qual.

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (petition in Revocation / Requête Civile) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on Jurisdictional Preliminaries and Merits of Requête Civile

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings conducted after the plaintiff reached majority without a petition en reprise d’instance were null and void
  2. 2 Whether subsequent authorisation by appellate court for the father to continue as curator cured antecedent procedural irregularities
  3. 3 Whether newly tendered evidence met statutory standard to order a new trial under the Code of Civil Procedure

Ratio Decidendi

Proceedings after the plaintiff’s majority were not null where (1) no notification of change of status had been given (so proceedings remain valid until such notice) and (2) the appellate court later authorised the father to continue as curator, which regularised prior irregularity; additionally, the new evidence did not satisfy the statutory requirement of being conclusive and therefore did not warrant a new trial, so the appellate and trial judgments were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court of King’s Bench and the trial judge affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King’s Bench (appeal side) and trial judge affirmed