Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Stephen v. McNeill

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Appeal dismissed because the court was satisfied on the facts that the fire resulted from Ferguson's unauthorized acts in the afternoon (ignition by blow torch), which constituted an intervening cause negating defendant's liability even if Rylands v. Fletcher were otherwise applicable.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Stephen

Plaintiff/appellant Counsel: Chas. F. R. Pincott

McNeill

Defendant/respondent Counsel: R. S. Robertson K.C.; E. F. Newcombe

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Tort — Negligence / Fire (rylands V. Fletcher Invoked) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiffs contended the fire originated in the defendant's building through the defendant's negligence and that they were entitled to recover for destruction of their building and contents, invoking the doctrine in Rylands v. Fletcher as appropriate.
Respondent
Respondent argued the evidence showed the fire started in the afternoon due to the acts of Ferguson, an unauthorized third person (use of a blow torch), which was an intervening cause absolving the defendant of liability; the Court of Appeal agreed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rylands v. Fletcher (case law)

    Doctrine in Rylands v. Fletcher can impose liability for escape of a dangerous thing from defendant's premises

  2. 02

    Common law causation principle as applied by the Court of Appeal

    An unauthorized intervening act of a third person which causes the damage breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant of liability

  3. 03

    Court of Appeal / Supreme Court reasoning

    Findings of fact by the trial judge and appellate findings on causation determine outcome where they establish an intervening cause

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the court was satisfied on the facts that the fire resulted from Ferguson's unauthorized acts in the afternoon (ignition by blow torch), which constituted an intervening cause negating defendant's liability even if Rylands v. Fletcher were otherwise applicable.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 6 February 1929

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.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 6 February 1929

[1929] SCR 537

Stephen v. McNeill Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1929-02-06 Report [1929] SCR 537 Judges Duff, Lyman Poore; Mignault, Pierre-Basile; Newcombe, Edmund Leslie; Lamont, John Henderson; Smith, Robert On appeal from British Columbia Subjects Torts Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Stephen v. McNeill, [1929] S.C.R. 537 Date: 1929-02-06 Stephen v. McNeill 1929: February 5; 1929: February 6. Present: Duff, Mignault, Newcombe, Lamont and Smith JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Negligence—Fire—Escape of fire from defendant's premises to plaintiffs' building—Liability of defendant—Origin of fire—Unauthorized act of third person—Findings of fact. APPEAL by the plaintiffs from the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia[1] which, reversing the judgment of D. A. McDonald J., dismissed with costs their action against the defendant for damages for destruction of their building and contents thereof through fire, which, they alleged, originated in defendant's building through defendant's negligence. The material facts of the case are set out in the judgment of the Court of Appeal[2]. At the conclusion of the argument of counsel for the appellants, and without calling on counsel for the respondent, the Court delivered judgment orally, dismissing the appeal with costs, on the ground that, assuming that the appellants, if they could bring themselves within the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher (1), were entitled to invoke that doctrine with respect to the fire, which started, as the trial judge had found, from the application of the blow torch, it was not disputed, and, of course, could not be disputed, that they must fail if these two propositions of fact were determined against them: (1) that the fire started in the afternoon and originated in some act of Ferguson, and (2) that the act of

Ferguson was the unauthorized act of a third person; and the Court had no manner of doubt that Ferguson's acts in the afternoon were the acts of an unauthorized person, and agreed with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the most natural conclusion from all the evidence was that the fire must have occurred as the result of the sawdust being ignited on the occasion of Ferguson's visit to the cellar in the afternoon. Appeal dismissed with costs. Chas. F. R. Pincott for the appellants. R. S. Robertson K.C. and E. F. Newcombe for the respondent. [1] 40 B.C. Rep. 209; [1928] 3 W.W.R. 182. [2] 40 B.C. Rep. 209; [1928] 3 W.W.R. 182.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Rylands v. Fletcher

Case cited

Stephen v. McNeill, 40 B.C. Rep. 209; [1928] 3 W.W.R. 182; [1929] S.C.R. 537

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.