Cossette v. Dun

Cossette v. Dun

Majority held the appeal was competent for the plaintiff because the matter in controversy for him was the amount of the Superior Court judgment ($2,000); held mercantile agencies carrying on business supplying paid commercial reports are civilly liable for damages caused by culpable negligence, imprudence or want of skill in furnishing false information even if communicated to a subscriber; and that appellate court erred in reducing trial judge's discretionary damages from $2,000 to $500 as the award was not clearly unreasonable—therefore Superior Court judgment restored and cross-appeal dismissed.

Citation
(1890) 18 SCR 222
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Octave Cossette; Defendants/respondents: Robert G. Dun et al.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 December 1890
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench on Appeal From Superior Court (defamation Action) / Supreme Court of Canada Hearing Appeal on Jurisdiction and Merits; Final Decision Restoring Superior Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Superior Court restored for $2,000; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Privileged Communications, Mercantile Agency Liability, Amount in Controversy, Measure of Damages, Appellate Review Standard
Source Language
English
Defamation Commercial Law Agency Law Civil Liability Appellate Procedure Privileged Communications Mercantile Agency Liability Amount in Controversy +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Octave Cossette

Plaintiff/appellant

Robert G. Dun et al.

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench on Appeal From Superior Court (defamation Action) / Supreme Court of Canada Hearing Appeal on Jurisdiction and Merits; Final Decision Restoring Superior Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court was competent under the amount-in-controversy limitation
  2. 2 Whether a mercantile agency is civilly liable for false reports negligently prepared and supplied to a subscriber
  3. 3 Whether communications to a subscriber were privileged such that defendants are exempt from liability

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the appeal was competent for the plaintiff because the matter in controversy for him was the amount of the Superior Court judgment ($2,000); held mercantile agencies carrying on business supplying paid commercial reports are civilly liable for damages caused by culpable negligence, imprudence or want of skill in furnishing false information even if communicated to a subscriber; and that appellate court erred in reducing trial judge's discretionary damages from $2,000 to $500 as the award was not clearly unreasonable—therefore Superior Court judgment restored and cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Superior Court restored for $2,000; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Restore Superior Court judgment awarding Octave Cossette $2,000 damages
  • Dismiss respondents' cross-appeal