Supreme Court of Canada
Asbestos Eastern Transport Inc. v. Maurice et al. [1971] S.C.R. 90
Date: 1970-12-07
Asbestos Eastern Transport Inc. (Plaintiff) Appellant;
and
J.A. Maurice (Defendant) Respondent.
and
La Banque Provinciale du Canada and Jean Roy (Mis-en-cause).
1970: December 1, 7.
Present: Fauteux C.J. and Abbott, Judson, Ritchie and Pigeon JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, APPEAL SIDE, PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Contract—Sale—Error, false representation and fraud—Facts alleged not established—Rule of non-intervention—Civil Code, art. 992, 993.
The action of the plaintiff to obtain avoidance of a contract of sale on the grounds of error, false representations and fraud, was dismissed as ill-founded. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff appealed to this Court.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
This case concerns a pure question of fact. Both Courts held that the evidence did not establish the facts alleged in support of the action. This Court does not intervene, in such a case, unless it has been established that the judgment appealed from is vitiated by a fundamental error. This has not been shown to be the case here.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal Side, province of Quebec[1], affirming a judgment of Mitchell J. Appeal dismissed.
Jean Martineau, Q.C., and Gérard G. Boudreau, for the plaintiff, appellant.
Georges Savoie, Q.C., and Gérald Allaire, for the defendant, respondent.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
[Page 91]
THE CHIEF JUSTICE—Alleging error, false representations and fraud, the appellant, Asbestos Eastern Transport Inc., sued the respondent, J.A. Maurice, to obtain avoidance of a contract of sale under which it bought from respondent 302 shares of J.A. Maurice Inc., at a price of $15,100. This action, which was contested, was dismissed as ill-founded after proof and hearing by Judge William Mitchell of the Superior Court.
The appellant appealed from this judgment. By a unanimous decision the Court of Queen’s Bench (Appeal Side)[2], then composed of Casey, Rinfret and Montgomery JJ., dismissed the appeal. Hence the appeal before this Court.
This case concerns a pure question of fact. The Superior Court, and the Court of Appeal, agreed in holding that the evidence submitted by the Appellant did not establish the facts alleged in support of the action. In accordance with a well-known rule, this Court does not intervene, in such a case, unless it has been established that the judgment appealed from is vitiated by a fundamental error. As we are all of opinion that this has not been shown to be the case here, it follows that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitor for the plaintiff, appellant: G.G. Boudreau, Sherbrooke.
Solicitors for the defendant, respondent: Leblanc, Barnard, Leblanc and Ass., Sherbrooke.