Montreal Tramways Co. v. Guérard

Montreal Tramways Co. v. Guérard

Filing a petition in revocation does not automatically stay appellate proceedings; the Court refused to return the record because the balance of inconvenience favored proceeding with the appeal; the jury's answer that the accident was caused by 'excessive speed' was sufficiently explicit under art.483 C.C.P. to sustain the verdict; the appeal is dismissed and the judgment awarding $11,000 is affirmed.

Citation
[1937] SCR 76
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Montreal Tramways Company; Respondent / Plaintiff: Rosario Guérard
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 1937
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (personal Injury/tort) / Hearing on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Application to Suspend Appeal and Return Record; Merits Heard
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of King’s Bench affirmed.
Legal Topics
Petition in Revocation of Judgment, Stay of Proceedings, Return of Record to Trial Court, Special Verdicts and Jury Answers, Sufficiency of Verdict, Assessment of Damages, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Tort (delict) Evidence Petition in Revocation of Judgment Stay of Proceedings Return of Record to Trial Court Special Verdicts and Jury Answers +3 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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montreal Tramways Company

Appellant / Defendant

Rosario Guérard

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (personal Injury/tort) / Hearing on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada; Application to Suspend Appeal and Return Record; Merits Heard

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether filing a petition in revocation of judgment suspends appellate proceedings as of right
  2. 2 Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to return the record to the trial court for hearing of the petition
  3. 3 Whether the jury's answer attributing sole fault to the appellant was sufficiently specific under art.483 C.C.P.

Ratio Decidendi

Filing a petition in revocation does not automatically stay appellate proceedings; the Court refused to return the record because the balance of inconvenience favored proceeding with the appeal; the jury's answer that the accident was caused by 'excessive speed' was sufficiently explicit under art.483 C.C.P. to sustain the verdict; the appeal is dismissed and the judgment awarding $11,000 is affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of trial court and Court of King’s Bench affirmed.

Orders

  • Application to suspend hearing of the appeal and to return the record to the Superior Court dismissed with costs
  • Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment awarding respondent a total of $11,000 ($8,000 as tutor for minor daughter and $3,000 personally) affirmed