Supreme Court of Canada
Mingarelli
v. Mezzapella / Mingarelli v. Montreal Tramways Co., [1959] S.C.R. 43
Date:
1958-12-18
Alfio Mingarelli (Defendant) Appellant;
and
Montreal Tramways Company (Plaintiff) Respondent.
Alfio Mingarelli (Defendant)
Appellant;
and
Guiseppe Mezzapella (Plaintiff) Respondent.
1958: October 9; 1958: December 18.
Present: Taschereau, Cartwright, Fauteux, Abbott and Judson
JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OP QUEEN'S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE,
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC.
Damages—Employee injured—Workmen's compensation paid by
employer—Subrogation in favour of employer—Actions by employer and victim
against tort-feasor—Apportionment of damages—Workmen's Compensation Act, R.S.Q.
1941, c. 160, ss. 7(3), 8.
The plaintiff M, an employee of the plaintiff company, was
injured in the course of his employment when struck by a car owned and driven
by the defendant. He was paid compensation under the Workmen's Compensation
Act by his employer. The employer took action against the defendant by
virtue of the subrogation contained in s. 7(3) of the Act, and the plaintiff M,
by way of a separate action, sued under s. 8 to recover the additional amount
required to constitute, with the amount paid to him under the Act, full
compensation for his loss. Both actions were joined for proof and hearing, and
were heard together. The trial judge found the defendant solely to blame and
apportioned damages between the two plaintiffs. This judgment was affirmed by
the Court of Appeal.
In this Court, the plaintiffs' counsel was requested to
restrict his argument to the question of apportionment of damages. It had been
contended by the defendant that the damages must be allocated without regard to
their headings, because the subrogation in favour of the employer operates in
regard to all the rights of the victim, whatever the headings under which the
damages are claimed may be.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The subrogation in s. 7(3) of the Act is an exception to the
general law; it must be strictly interpreted and is only a partial subrogation.
It is limited to amounts paid by an employer with respect to those losses for
which he is legally liable to pay compensation under the Act and can be applied
only to amounts recovered by way of these losses from the tort-feasor. There
was evidence upon which the trial
[Page 44]
judge could properly make the apportionment which he did. This
apportionment was accepted by both plaintiffs and it is doubtful whether the
defendant had any legal interest in questioning it. In any event, it was rightly
affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
APPEALS from two judgments of the Court of Queen's
Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec, affirming a judgment of Archambault J.
Appeals dismissed.
Jean Brisset, Q.C., for the defendant,
appellant.
Jules Deschènes, for the plaintiffs,
respondents.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
Abbott J.:—The
respondent Mezzapella, an employee of the Montreal Tramways Company, was
seriously injured while in the course of his employment, as a result of being
struck by an automobile owned and operated by the appellant. He was entitled to
receive and was paid by the respondent Montreal Tramways Company compensation
under the Workmen's Compensation Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 160, as amended.
Under the provisions of that Act, the respondent, Montreal
Tramways Company, sued appellant in virtue of the subrogation contained in s.
7(3) of the Act, and respondent Mezzapella also took a separate action under s.
8 of the Act to recover from appellant an additional amount required to
constitute, with the amount paid to him under the Act, compensation for the
total loss which he had sustained as a result of his injuries.
Both actions were joined for proof and hearing and were
heard and argued together.
The learned trial judge found the appellant solely
responsible for the accident. He fixed the total damages suffered by the
respondent Mezzapella at $9,302.60, apportioned these $3,134.72 to Mezzapella
and $6,167.88 to Montreal Tramways Company, and rendered judgments in the two
actions accordingly. With a minor adjustment as to the amount awarded the
Montreal Tramways Company which is not relevant to these appeals, these
judgments were confirmed by the Court of Queen's Bench1. Mr. Justice
Martineau, dissenting, would have held the
[Page 45]
respondent Mezzapella in part responsible for the accident
and would have reduced the amount awarded for permanent partial incapacity.
At the conclusion of the argument on behalf of appellant,
the respondents' counsel was informed by the Court that it desired to hear him
only as to the question of the apportionment of damages which had been raised
by appellant.
In his factum counsel for appellant submitted that this apportionment
should have been based upon the following principle:
Une fois établis, … les dommages doivent être
attribués … sans tenir compte des chefs en regard desquels ces dommages ont pu
être accordés, car la subrogation en faveur de l'employeur opère en regard de
tous les droits de la victime, quels que soient les chefs sous lesquels les
dommages puissent être réclamés.
In my opinion that submission is not well founded. The
rights of the parties depend upon the effect to be given to ss. 7(3) and 8 of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, which read as follows:
7(3) If the workman or his dependents elect to claim
compensation under this act, the employer, if he is individually liable to pay
it, or the Commission, if the compensation is payable out of the accident fund,
as the case may be, shall be subrogated pleno jure in the rights of the
workman or his dependents and may, personally or in the name and stead of the
workman or his dependents, institute legal action against the person
responsible, and any sum so recovered by the Commission shall form part of the
accident fund. The subrogation takes place by the mere making of the election
and may be exercised to the full extent of the amount which the employer or the
Commission may be called upon to pay as a result of the accident. Nevertheless,
if as a result of this act, the employer or the Commission happen afterwards to
be freed from the obligation of paying a part of the compensation so recovered,
the sum not used shall be reimbursable within the month following the event
which determines the cessation of the compensation.
Agreements or compromises effected between the parties
respecting such action or right of action shall be null and void, unless
approved and ratified by the Commission, and the payment of the amount agreed
upon or adjudged shall be made only in the manner indicated by the Commission.
8. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary and
notwithstanding the fact that compensation may have been obtained under the
option contemplated by subsection 3 of section 7, the injured workman, his
dependents or his representatives may, before the prescription enacted in the
Civil Code is acquired, claim, under common law, from any person other than the
employer of such injured workman any additional sum
[Page 46]
required to constitute, with the above-mentioned
compensation, an indemnification proportionate to the loss actually sustained.
The subrogation provided for in subsection 3 of section
7 is an exception to the general law; it must be strictly interpreted and, as
Bissonnette J. has pointed out in Commission des Accidents du Travail de
Québec v. Collet Frères Limitée, the section provides only for a
partial subrogation. In my opinion that subrogation is limited to amounts paid
by the employer with respect to those losses for which the employer is legally
liable to pay compensation under the Act and can be applied only to amounts
recovered with respect to such losses from the author of the accident. For
instance, a workman has no claim against his employer under the Act for damages
sustained by him as a result of pain and suffering and, if he claims and
recovers such damages from the author of the accident, the employer is not
entitled under the subrogation to receive or be paid any portion of such
amount.
As was pointed out in the Court below, the provisions of the
Workmen's Compensation Act giving two rights of action, one to the
employer (or the Workmen's Compensation Commission) and another to the workman,
do not operate effectively unless either (1) a joint action is taken; (2) the
employer or the Commission is brought in as mise-en-cause or (3) the two
separate actions, if taken, are joined for proof and hearing, as in the present
case.
The learned trial judge fixed the amount of the total
damages which the respondents had suffered and for which the appellant was held
solely responsible, apportioned these damages between the two respondents, and
rendered judgment in each of the two actions accordingly. In my opinion there
was evidence upon which he could properly make the apportionment which he did.
Both respondents accepted the apportionment made and I doubt whether appellant
has any legal interest in questioning that appor-
[Page 47]
tionment. In any event it has been
confirmed by the Court below and in my opinion that Court was right in so
doing.
I would dismiss both appeals with costs.
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Attorneys for the defendant, appellant:
Beauregard, Brisset, Reycraft & Lalande, Montreal.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, respondents:
Létourneau, Quinlan, Forest, Deschènes & Emery, Montreal.
Email this Content