Commission des Accidents du Travail de Québec v. Tri-Bec Inc. et al.

Commission des Accidents du Travail de Québec v. Tri-Bec Inc. et al.

Clauses 6 and 7 are clear and unambiguous; the court must apply their plain wording which reflects the parties' intent, therefore the subcontractors are entitled to the remuneration as stated in the contract and the appeals are dismissed.

Citation
[1973] SCR 741
Parties
Appellant/intervenor: Quebec Workmen's Compensation Commission (Commission des Accidents du Travail de Québec); General Contractor / Appellant / Defendant: Beaudet & Fils Inc.; Plaintiff / Respondent: Pierre Tardif Inc.; Plaintiff / Respondent: Tri-Bec Inc.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1972
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec; Judgment on Appeals From Superior Court Decisions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Subcontractor Remuneration, Contract Interpretation, Payment for Materials, Plain Meaning Rule
Source Language
English
Contract Construction Law Commercial Law Subcontractor Remuneration Contract Interpretation Payment for Materials Plain Meaning Rule

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quebec Workmen's Compensation Commission (Commission des Accidents du Travail de Québec)

Appellant/intervenor

Beaudet & Fils Inc.

General Contractor / Appellant / Defendant

Pierre Tardif Inc.

Plaintiff / Respondent

Tri-Bec Inc.

Plaintiff / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Appeal Side, Quebec; Judgment on Appeals From Superior Court Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 9% overall remuneration applies to materials supplied to the site by other subcontractors
  2. 2 Whether clauses 6 and 7 of the subcontracts are ambiguous requiring interpretation
  3. 3 Whether the general contractor is liable to pay the subcontractors 9% on the cost of materials supplied by other subcontractors

Ratio Decidendi

Clauses 6 and 7 are clear and unambiguous; the court must apply their plain wording which reflects the parties' intent, therefore the subcontractors are entitled to the remuneration as stated in the contract and the appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs.
  • General contractor ordered to pay Pierre Tardif Inc. $21,294.80 with interest and costs.