Phillips v. Roy et al.
- Citation
- [1977] 2 SCR 521
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 June 1977
- Posture
- Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 2 June 1977
- Posture
- Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish negligence by respondent Roy and there was no reason for the Supreme Court to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the courts below.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division, affirming the trial judgment dismissing the appellants' claim, is affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Elizabeth Mary Phillips
Appellant Counsel: Raymond DubéEvangeline Phillips
Appellant Counsel: Raymond DubéLeo Roy
Respondent Counsel: J. Turney Jones, Q.C.Lionel Fontaine
Respondent Counsel: J. Turney Jones, Q.C.03
Procedural history
Posture
Motor Vehicle Negligence / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether respondent Roy was negligent
- 02
Whether appellants proved negligence on the balance of probabilities
- 03
Whether the Supreme Court should disturb concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellants argued that respondent Roy was negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle and that this negligence caused damage for which they seek damages.
- Respondent
- Respondents argued that appellants failed to establish negligence on the balance of probabilities and that the concurrent findings of fact by the trial judge and the New Brunswick Appeal Division should not be disturbed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law - negligence jurisprudence
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving negligence on a balance of probabilities.
- 02
Appellate review standard - common law
An appellate court will not overturn concurrent findings of fact of lower courts absent a palpable and overriding error.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to establish negligence by respondent Roy and there was no reason for the Supreme Court to disturb the concurrent factual findings of the courts below.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal Division, affirming the trial judgment dismissing the appellants' claim, is affirmed.
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 2 June 1977
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· 2 June 1977
Phillips v. Roy et al. Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-06-02 Report [1977] 2 SCR 521 Judges Martland, Ronald; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean On appeal from New Brunswick Subjects Motor vehicles Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Phillips v. Roy et al., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 521 Date: 1977-06-02 Elizabeth Mary Phillips and Evangeline Phillips Appellants; and Leo Roy and Lionel Fontaine Respondents. 1977: June 2. Present: Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Dickson and Beetz JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK, APPEAL DIVISION Motor vehicles—Failure to establish negligence—Concurrent findings by Courts below—No reason to reverse. APPEAL from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, Appeal division[1], affirming a judgment of Stevenson J.2 dismissing appellants’ claim for damages. Appeal dismissed with costs. Raymond Dubé, for the appellants. J. Turney Jones, Q.C., for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by MARTLAND J.—We see no reason to reverse the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the appellants failed to establish negligence on the part of the respondent Roy. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellants: Raymond, Dubé, Dalhousie. Solicitors for the respondents: Gilbert, McGloan, Gillis & Jones, Saint John. [1] (1974), 4 A.P.R. 137. 2(1974), 9 N.B.R. 618.
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.