Supreme Court of Canada
Montreal Tramways Co. v. Brillant, [1929] S.C.R. 598
Date: 1929-03-20
Montreal Tramways Company v. Brillant
1929: February 19, 1929: March 20.
Present: Duff, Mignault, Newcombe, Rinfret and Smith JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Trial by jury—Motion to withdraw the case before verdict—Sufficiency of the evidence adduced—Proper order as to a new trial. Arts. 469, 495, 1248 C.C.P.
APPEAL by the defendant appellant from the decision of the Court of King’s Bench, appeal side, province of Quebec, reversing the judgment of the Superior Court, Duclos J., and ordering a new trial.
The plaintiff (respondent), the widow of one Charles Quirion, claimed compensation for the death of her husband, caused, as she alleged, by the defendant ((appellant) company’s negligence. He was struck by one of the company’s tram cars while attempting to cross its tracks in Montreal, and thereby received injuries from which he died soon after. At the trial, which took place before
[Page 599]
Duclos J. and a special jury, the plaintiff presented her case, and the defendant then moved that the case be withdrawn from the jury and that the action be dismissed, upon the ground that the plaintiff had introduced no evidence upon which the jury could find a verdict. The Court granted this motion. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of King’s Bench, which was unanimous in the view that there was evidence to go to the jury. But the order for a new trial, as framed by the appellate court, directed
que la cause soit remise devant le tribunal de première instance dans l’état où elle se trouvait, au moment où la susdite motion a été faite, et pour qu’il soit procédé suivant la loi.
A. Vallée K.C. for the appellant.
J. P. Lanctot for the respondent.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the view of the judges of the appellate court that the trial judge erred in withdrawing the case from the jury and in dismissing the action, and that there was evidence which he should have submitted for the jury’s consideration; and the appeal was dismissed with costs. But the court added that “a question arose at the argument as to the form of the order” for a new trial as made by the appellate court, and “attention was directed to the difficulty of continuing the proceedings before the tribunal of first instance in the state in which (they were) when the defendant company launched its motion. In order to comply (with such order), it would seem necessary to resume the proceedings before the judge, and with the special jury, who functioned on the former occasion, and it would be inconvenient, or perhaps impossible, to satisfy these requirements, the judgment at the trial having been given more than a year ago.” This Court therefore varied the judgment appealed from “by substituting for the clause (above) quoted a direction to the effect that a new trial shall be had between the parties.”
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Perron, Vallée & Perron.
Solicitors for the respondent: Lanctot & Hamelin.
Email this Content