Blumberg and Consolidated Moulton Trimmings Ltd. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.

Blumberg and Consolidated Moulton Trimmings Ltd. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co.

A judgment against multiple defendants that does not determine each defendant's contributive share does not constitute a definitive determination between co-defendants on apportionment; a subrogated creditor cannot use seizure by garnishment to enforce an assumed equal share absent judicial determination, and payment/subrogation do not create res judicata on apportionment; consequently the seizure was invalid.

Citation
[1962] SCR 21
Parties
Appellants: Louis Blumberg; Consolidated Moulton Trimmings Limited; Respondent (garnishee): Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company; Plaintiff (victim): Paul-Emile Desjardins
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 June 1961
Procedural Posture
Action in Damages (quasi Delict/tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Subrogation, Joint and Several Liability, Garnishment (saisie Arrêt), Res Judicata, Apportionment of Liability
Source Language
English
Tort Insurance Law Civil Procedure Subrogation Civil Code Interpretation Joint and Several Liability Garnishment (saisie Arrêt) Res Judicata +1 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Blumberg; Consolidated Moulton Trimmings Limited

Appellants

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Respondent (garnishee)

Paul-Emile Desjardins

Plaintiff (victim)

Procedural Posture

Action in Damages (quasi Delict/tort) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench, Quebec (appeal Side)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a subrogated creditor may execute by seizure by garnishment against co-debtors without a prior judgment fixing their respective shares of liability
  2. 2 Whether a judgment against multiple defendants that does not fix apportionment constitutes res judicata as between co-defendants on contribution
  3. 3 Whether there is a presumption of equal division of liability between joint tortfeasors and whether such presumption permits immediate execution by a subrogee

Ratio Decidendi

A judgment against multiple defendants that does not determine each defendant's contributive share does not constitute a definitive determination between co-defendants on apportionment; a subrogated creditor cannot use seizure by garnishment to enforce an assumed equal share absent judicial determination, and payment/subrogation do not create res judicata on apportionment; consequently the seizure was invalid.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Seizure (saisie-arrêt) annulled