Supreme Court of Canada
Bélanger v.
Bélanger, (1895) 24 SCR 678
Date: 1895-06-26
LOUIS ARTHUR BELANGER (DEFENDANT)
Appellant;
And
LOUIS CHARLES BELANGER (PLAINTIFF)
Respondent.
1895: May 9; 1895: June 26
PRESENT:—Sir Henry
Strong C. J., and Taschereau, Gwynne. Sedgewick
and King JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH FOR LOWER
CANADA (APPEAL SIDE).
Contract—Proprietor of newspaper—Engagement of
editor—Dismissal— Breach of contract,
A. B. and C 33. who had published a newspaper as partners or
joint owners entered into a new agreement by
which A. B. assumed payment of all the debts of the business and became
from that time sole proprietor of the paper, binding himself to continue its
publication and, in case he wished to sell out, to give C. B. the preference.
The agreement provided that :
3. Le dit Charles Bélanger devient, à partir ce ce jour, directeur et rédacteur du dit
journal, son nom devant paraitre comme directeur en tête du dit journal, et
pour ses services et son influence comme tel, le dit Arthur Bélanger lui alloue
quatre cents piastres par année, tant par
impressions, annonces, etc., qu'en argent jusqu'au montant de cette
somme, et le dit Arthur Bélanger ne pourra
mettre fin à cet engagement sans le consentement du dit Charles Bélanger
The paper was published
for some time under this agreement as a sup porter of the Liberal party
when C.B. without instructions from or permission of A. B., wrote editorials
violently opposing the can didate of that party at an election and was
dismissed from his position on the paper. He then brought an action against A.
B. to have it declared that he was "rédacteur et directeur "
of the newspaper and claiming damages.
Held, reversing the decision of the Court of Queen's
Bench, that C. B. by
the agreement had become the employee of A. B. the owner of the paper ; that he
had no right to change the political colour of the paper without the owner's
consent ; and that he was rightly dismissed for so doing.
[Page 679]
APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Queen's Bench for Lower
Canada (appeal side) affirming the judgment of the Superior Court in favour of
the plaintiff.
The facts of the case are sufficiently set out in the above
head-note and in the judgment of the court.
White Q.C. for the appellant.
Brown Q.C. for the respondent.
The judgment of the court was delivered by :
TASCHEREAU J. The
controversy between the parties in this case relates to the control and
editorship of a certain newspaper, called Le Progrès de V
Est, published in the city of Sherbrooke. To avoid
confusion, owing to the similarity of names, I will call the plaintiff,
respondent, simply Charles, and the defendant, appellant Arthur.
The document upon which Charles sues Arthur, is dated the 24th
February 1890 and reads as follows ; The parties, plaintiff and defendant who
had hereto fore published the said newspaper as partners, or joint owners :
Se donnent mutuellement quittance de tous comptes et demandes •pour toutes les affaires qu'elles ont fait
ensemble comme éditeurs et propriétaires du journal Le Progrès de l'Est, et
imprimeurs, depuis l'entrée du dit Arthur Bélanger à l'atelier jusqu'à ce jour,
et ce dernier s'engage à acquitter seul les dettes contractées an nom de
Bélanger et Compagnie do manière que le dit. Charles Bélanger n'en soit point
recherché.
2. Le dit Arthur
Bélanger prend à lui seul, à partir de ce jour, l'atelier d'imprimerie et le
journal a titre de propriétaire et d’imprimeur, et s'engage à continuer la
publication du dit journal et à donner la préférence au dit Charles Bélanger,
dans le cas où il voudrait vendre ;
3. Le dit Charles Bélanger devient, à partir de
ce jour, directeur et rédacteur du dit journal son nom devant paraître comme
directeur en tête du dit journal et pour ses services et son influence comme
tel, le
[Page 680]
dit Arthur Bélanger lui alloue quatre cents
piastres par année, tant par impressions, annonces, etc. qu'en argent jusqu'au
montant de cette somme, et le dit Arthur Bélanger ne pourra mettre fin à cet
engagement sans le consentement du dit Charles Bélanger.
After carrying on the business for a time
under this agreement, and publishing the paper as a supporter of the Liberal
party, a dispute arose in 1891 between the parties as to the support to be
given to the Liberal candidate in Sherbrooke, at an election
then pending and Arthur, not pleased at the stand Charles intended to take and
actually took in relation thereto, dismissed him from the editorship.
Hence the present action by Charles, who asks by his
conclusions, that he be declared to be the "rédacteur" and
"directeur" of the newspaper in question, to
have his name inserted in the paper as such and that he be declared to be
entitled to the editorial control of the paper, and that defendant be ordered
to grant him editorial control of the paper and to deliver to him the exchanges
; that he be held thereto by all legal means, and that he be condemned to pay
55,000 as damages to him, the plaintiff.
Arthur pleaded to this action that he had a right to dismiss
the plaintiff as he had done. That plea, in my opinion, has been conclusively
established. It cannot be questioned that under the agreement between the
parties, above mentioned, Arthur was vested with the full ownership of this
paper, with power to sell it at any time, and that Charles became thereafter
the salaried employee and editor of and for Arthur, the owner. The document
says so in plain terms, and no surrounding circumstances can be admitted to
make it say the contrary.
That being so, the respondent's contention that he was in a
position of absolute independence towards Arthur is utterly untenable. It is
true that by the last
[Page 681]
part of art. 3 of the said agreement Arthur bound. himself not
to put an end to Charles's employment as editor, without Charles's consent. But
to contend that, in virtue of this stipulation, Charles's rights in the
editorial share were above his employer's rights, is a proposition I cannot
accede to, though he was d directeur " besides being
editor. This stipulation is, of necessity, impliedly
accompanied by and subject to the understanding that the owner's responsibility
and interests should be respected in the columns of the paper and the owner was
the sole judge of the manner in which that was to be done. The respondent would
contend, forsooth, that he was even at liberty to direct his writings against
his employer. That is what his contentions virtually amount to. The paper had
always, or for along time, been known as an organ or supporter of the Liberal
party. On the eve of the election I referred to, Charles as editor wrote an
article unknown to Arthur, in which he abused the Liberal party in unmistakable
terms, concluding by saying that in Sherbrooke the
Liberals were "rari nantes in gurgite vasto," which is cruelly translated in Sherbrooke
French by : "
Ils sont comme les pois
dans une soupe claire." Such conduct on the part of Charles deserved dismissal, and he cannot complain if he got it.
When an editor finds that his opinions are not in accord with those of the
proprietor he must either submit or quit. And if he takes advantage of the
confidence that is reposed in him to abuse his proprietor's political friends,
and in the midst of a political battle turns traitor to the party he is paid to
support, his conduct cannot be too severely censured.
In the present case Arthur, the owner, would have had a
perfect right to change the political colour of his paper and Charles the
editor would have had to follow him and obey his orders, or abandon the
[Page 682]
editorial chair. But the interversion of
these relative rights and duties that Charles contends for cannot be
sanctioned. He certainly, also, had a perfect right to change his political
views, but he had not the right to change the political colour of Arthur's
newspaper, without Arthur's consent.
I would allow the appeal and dismiss the action with costs in
the three courts against respondent.
Appeal allowed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant : White, Cate
& Wells.
Solicitors for the respondent : Brown, Morris &
McDonald.
Email this Content