HARRY LANG
MICHAEL
JOSEPH (Defendants) .........
PATRICIA POLLARD MARY
LOU MURPHY (Plaintiffs) ....
APPEAL from a judgment of the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick (1) affirming a judgment of Richard J. as to liability but increasing the amount of damages awarded. Appeal dismissed.
J. Paul Barry, Q.C., for the defendants, appellants. D. G. Rouse, for the plaintiffs, respondents.
the conclusion of the argument on behalf of the appellants, and without calling upon counsel for the respondents, we were all of opinion that the appeal failed as to the question of liability; that is, we were satisfied that the accident was caused by the gross negligence of the driver of the automobile and that the respondents were neither volens nor contributorily negligent.
Judgment was reserved on the appeal as to damages.
etal. After considering all the evidence and the reasons for judgment in the Courts below, I have come to the conclu- Kei.C sion that this Court should not interfere with the awards made by the Appeal Division.
No question arises as to special damages but the majority of the Appeal Division came to the conclusion that the allowances made by the trial judge for general damages were so inordinately low as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of them, referring to Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited (1).
The matter has also been considered in this Court in Ross v. Dunstall; Ross v. Emery (2), Pratt v. Beaman (3), and Hanes et al. v. Kennedy et al. (4). While in these last three cases a provincial Court of Appeal had reduced the damages awarded by the trial judge, the same principle is applicable and that is, particularly in Canada where estimates of damages may differ in the various Provinces, that this Court will not, except in very exceptional circumstances, interfere with the amounts fixed by the Court of Appeal where they differ from the damages assessed by the trial judge. Mr. Barry referred to several cases where this Court did not agree with the amounts awarded by a Court of Appeal, but in all of them exceptional circumstances were to be found. In any event, facts differ so greatly that it is impossible to say that one case is precisely like another.
In the Appeal Division Mr. Justice Bridges, who finally agreed in the trial judge's estimate of the damages, stated that if he had been trying the case himself he would have allowed Miss Pollard $10,000 instead of $7,000 general damages.
The majority, finding that the trial judge's estimates were so low as to require correction, concluded that for general damages a proper allowance to the respondent Patricia Pollard was $15,000 and that in the case of the respondent Mary Lou Murphy the $1,200 allowed at the trial should be increased to $3,000. In view of all the evidence as to the injuries suffered by the respondents, I am ntt nefr eV.
not prepared to interfere with these amounts.
The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
CJ.
J.:-This is an appeal from a judgment of the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick (1), affirming the judgment of Richard J. as to liability but increasing the amount of general damages awarded to the respondents.
The respondents were both injured in an automobile accident.
They were being carried gratuitously as passengers in an automobile owned by the appellant Lang and driven with his consent by the appellant Joseph and consequently under the New Brunswick statute in order to succeed in their action they had to establish that the appellant Joseph was guilty of gross negligence which caused the accident.
It was argued before us that the Courts below erred in finding that gross negligence had been shown and in failing to find that the respondents were guilty of contributory negligence. Both of these points were disposed of adversely to the appellants at the hearing and counsel for the respondents was called upon only upon the question of damages. No question arises as to the special damages. The learned trial judge assessed the general damages of the respondent Pollard at $7,000 and those of the respondent Murphy at $1,200.
The Appeal Division by a majority (McNair C.J. N.B. and Ritchie J., with Bridges J. dissenting) increased these amounts to $15,000 and $3,000 respectively.
The injuries suffered by the respondent Pollard are described as follows in the reasons of Ritchie J. (2):
year the cast was removed at intervals of approximately 3 months and X-rays taken which showed delays in union and so required that a cast L7o be re-applied. In August 1955, a brace was fitted to support the leg. Then et al. an increased deformity developed to an extent that a re-operation was necessary. From the operations there will be a permanent scar, 10 or inches in length, visible when shorts or a bathing suit are worn. A et al. laceration on the forehead required sutures.
Miss Pollard's stays in the.Cartwright J. Fredericton hospital in 1954 were from September 17th to November 30th, in 1955 from January 3rd to January 6th, from February 4th to February 8th, from April 4th to April 8th, July 5th to July 9th, on September 3rd and from April 29th to May 6th.
The second operation performed at Moncton required a stay in the Moncton hospital from October 23rd to November 19th.
Between September 1954, and November 1955, Miss Pollard's stays in hospital totalled 130 days, inclusive of the date of each admission and discharge. At the time of the trial, in December 1955, movement of the knee was hardly one-third of normal and Miss Pollard was undergoing physiotherapy treatment which was expected to continue for some months. Dr. E. W. Ewart of Moncton, who performed the second operation, anticipated further recovery but expressed the opinion Miss Pollard will always have some restriction of movement in the left knee and that he would expect some degree of limp.
To this it should be added that the evidence indicated a probability of the necessity of further surgical treatment to Miss Pollard's knee and that, in his reasons for judgment, the learned trial judge spoke of the probability of suffering and further surgical treatment in the future.
The injuries to the respondent Murphy are described as follows in the reasons of Ritchie J. (1):
The injuries sustained by Miss Murphy included a fracture of the upper end of the right tibia, which, extending into the joint, caused fluid in the joint and consequent pain on bending the knee. The fracture was aspirated three times and compression applied to prevent a reformation. Miss Murphy then was allowed to use crutches. On November 6th a leg cast was applied and the leg immobilized until December 13th when X-rays revealed the fracture was healed.
No permanent disability will result from the fracture but traumatic arthritis can ensue. Traumatic arthritis means pain.
Miss Murphy testified that on rainy days she suffers from aches and pains in the injured leg and in her knee. While in the hospital she was very upset and nervous, had bouts of crying and was generally quite disturbed.
Her hospital terms were from September 18th to October 7th, from October 13th to October 18th, from October 21st to November 26th and on December 13th, a total of 64 days, again computed inclusively. At the trial Miss Murphy complained of a "nervous stomach" which she did not have before the accident, and also said she did not sleep well and had a very poor appetite. She has returned to her home in Milltown because she does not feel she could live in a boarding-house and be up part of the night with stomach sickness.
I find nothing in the evidence or in the reasons for judgment to indicate that either the learned trial judge or the learned justices in the Appeal Division proceeded on any (1) 9 D.L.R. (2d) at pp. 647-8.
89518-3 wrong principle or under any misapprehension as to the effect of the evidence.
The difference between them was et one of judgment as to what amounts should be awarded for the injuries described and their past and future effects. is obvious that these amounts were not determinable by . precise calculation.
The learned justices who constituted the majority in the Appeal Division were of the opinion that the amounts assessed by the learned trial judge were much too low and substituted the amounts which they considered to be more in accordance with the severity of the injuries.
Under these circumstances where no error of principle and no misapprehension of any feature of the evidence is indicated I think that the rule which we should follow is that stated by Anglin J., as he then was, giving the unanimous judgment of the Court, in Pratt v. Beamen (1): This decision was followed in the unanimous judgment of this Court, delivered by Kerwin J., as he then was, in Hanes et al. v. Kennedy et al. (2).
The principle appears to me to be equally applicable whether the first appellate Court has increased or decreased the general damages awarded at the trial.
I find myself unable to say that any sufficient ground has been shown for interfering with the judgment of the Appeal Division.
I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
J.:-The question in this Court of damages awarded in a provincial appeal Court modifying those given at trial is not primarily whether they are "inordinately" high or low, or are such as would betray this Court into an exclamatory astonishment.
Assuming these tests to be appropriate to an appeal from the trial-and it was to an appeal from a verdict that the language of Viscount Simon a. in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited (1) was directed-our duty is to give the judgment the Court from which the appeal is brought should have given.
If it is clear that the Appeal Division here, in its initial determination that the damages allowed were too low, has not properly applied the governing principle, this Court must ordinarily restore the trial judgment; if it is not, a second question arises whether what it has done in its own assessment is itself beyond the other limit of the rule.
I share the views of Bridges J. on the quantum which, if sitting at the trial, he would in this case have awarded. But a difficulty is raised by the ground on which Ritchie J. puts the increased award: that the amount found by the trial judge was inordinately low. However necessary or helpful it may be, danger lurks in the uncritical use of adjectives or illustrative language for the purposes of judgment. What is "inordinate"?
It is not necessarily the equivalent of "shocking" and in any event these terms, particularly the latter, stressing the subjective element, tend, in their application, to vary with the sophistication of the individual mind. That application may vary also with different subject-matter: what is "inordinate" or "shocking" negligence might be ordinary in libel.
The amount allowed by the Judicial Committee in Nance followed from a thorough analysis of the significant factors to be taken into account in determining the probable ultimate benefit lost to the claimant through the accident; and estimating that, in terms of money, in the light of all those factors the amount allowed by a trained and experienced judgment was. proportionate to the total circumstances. That amount was what a jury could not reasonably have exceeded; but it was, I think, the proportionment, the balanced relation of the damages found to the entire factual and legal situation so analyzed, that was significant and furnished the limitations of a proper finding.
The word "unreasonable" is a calmer word and has had a longer and a wider currency than those mentioned, and used in damages in a setting of that proportionment gives, in my opinion, more promise of consistency and relative uniformity.
-Could the majority in the Appeal Division, in the light -- J of the framework of circumstances here, have found that the amounts allowed at trial were within the fair scope of "unreasonably" low? I am unable to hold they could not. Can it then be said that the new assessment is itself unreasonably high? And to this I must give a similar answer that I cannot say it is.
The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed with costs. Appeal disinissed with costs. Solicitor for the defendants, appellants: J. Paul Barry, Saint John.
Solicitors for the plaintiffs, respondents: Hanson, Rouse & Gilbert, Fredericton.
Liability to account-Trusts and trustees
-Loan of company shares to be used as collateral and returned-Shares sold by borrower-Nature of recourse-Administration of property as foundation of liability to account-Civil Code, arts. 1765,
1766, 1777-Code of Civil Procedure, arts.
566 et seq.
ACTIONS.
Bars to relief-Ex turpi causa non otitur actio-Whether rule applicable.
AGENCY.
Whether contract made with agent or principal-Reasonable cause given for belief in mandate-To what extent estoppel recognized in Quebec law-Evidence telephone conversation-Civil Code, arts.
1235(3), 1727, 1730.
Co. 160.
ARCHITECTS.
Liability to client-Installation of defective heating system-Reliance on heating contractor-Duty of architect to investigate and exercise own judgment.
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS.
Disavowal of attorney's act - When formal proceedings en disaveu required- Code of Civil Procedure, art. 251.
CARRIERS.
Liabilities-Fire on vessel-Destruction cargo-Whether liable-The
Water
49 (R.S.C. 1952, 291), and sched., art. III(1), art. IV(1),
CHATTEL MORTGAGES. Priorities-Failure to file renewal statement-Whether subsequent mortgagee is "in good faith"-Notice-Insolvency mortgagor-Sufficiency affidavit bona fides-The
Bills of and Chattel Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1950, 36, 24(1), ROSEN 755. CIVIL CODE
1.-Articles 379, 380 (Immoveables destination).................... 476, See 2 3. Article 443 (Usufruct).......... See
3.-Articles 925, 928, 959 (Substitution).............................
4.-Articles et seq. (Interpretation of Contracts)....................... See 2.
- Article 1016 (Interpretation Contracts)............................. See 6.-Articles 1054 (Offences and Quasi-Offences).................... See
Article 1054 (Quasi-Offences)... See Article 1235(3) (Testimony).... See
9.-Article
1265 (Marriage Covenants)............................. See 10.-Articles 1526, 1527, 1530 (Latent Defects).......................... See 2.
Article (Mandate)....... See
12.-Article
(Obligations of the Mandatary)....................... See
13.-Articles 1727, 1730 (Obligations the Mandator toward Third Persons). See
14.-Articles 1763, 1765, 1766 (Prds d usage).......................... See AccouNTs.
15.-Article
(Prdl de consomm ation)............................ See
16.-Articles
1918 et seq.
(Transaction)..........................
See
Article 225 (Improbation) .....
2.- Article 251 (Disavowal).......... 463
3.-Articles 566 et seq. (Accounting)
4.- Article 781 (Effect of Sheriff's Sales)
. ........... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . 4 63
5.- Article
(Effect
Sheriff's
Sales).............................
GIFTS.
6.-Article 784 (Vacating Sheriff's Sales)
. ........... . . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . 4 63
7.-Article 987 (Prerogative Writ).. 128
COMPANIES.
Officers-Appointed by directors-Term of office not specified-Same directors re-elected-Failure to appoint new officers due to deadlock among directors-Claim of holding over-Quo warranto against president and secretary-No longer choice of majority-Mandataries-Termination of mandate on election of new board-The
Quebec
Companies
R.S.Q.
1941, c. 276, ss. 82, 86-Civil Code, arts. 1701,
1711-Code of Civil Procedure, art. 987.
COMPENSATION.
1. Injurious affection of land-Regulations governing height of buildings and use of land in vicinity of airport-Effect subsequent repeal of part-The Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 3, s. 4, as amended by 1950, c. 23, s. 3, and 1952, c. 14, s. 1.
2. Timber lands-Valuation of lands and unexpired licences on
Crown lands- Licence as "interest" in land-The Expropriation Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 106-Allowance for compulsory taking.
LUMBER THE
CONDITIONAL SALES. Remedies of unpaid seller-Repossession and resale of goods-Special contractual obligation to obtain best price possible on resale-The Conditional Sales Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 34, s. 10.
& CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. 1. Regulation of trade and commerce- Provincial marketing schemes-Validity of The Farm Products Marketing Act, R.S.O. 1950, c. 131, as amended, and regulations and orders thereunder. RE 2. Criminal law-Property and civil rights -Matters of local or private nature in Province - Act Respecting Communistic Propaganda, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 52.
3. Criminal law and procedure-Validity of the Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c. 51, ss. 659-667.
CONTRACTS.
1. Fraud and error-Whether causes of absolute nullity-Person in position of trust-Effect of confirmation of contract. 2. Potestative condition- Remuneration for occupation of property depending on the agreement of the parties-No agreement reached-Property occupied-Courts cannot fix rental but must award indemnity. 3. Novation-Assignment of liabilities- When permitted-Absence of consent of other party.
Co.
LTD. v. & 4. Sale-Interpretation.
1. Supreme Court of Canada-Jurisdiction
-Whether lis remains between parties- Intervention of Attorney-General.
Jurisdiction-Appellate jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Canada-Issue as to costs only-The
Supreme
Court Act,
R.S.C. 1952, 259, ss. 36(a), 43.
v. &
Appeals-Inferences to be drawn from facts-Second appellate Court.
CRIMINAL LAW
1. Habitual criminals - Matters to be proved by prosecution-Proof that accused leading persistently a criminal life"
at time of primary offence-The Criminal
Code, now 1953-54 (Can.),
(a).
2. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada-Extension of time-"Special reasons"-The
Criminal
Code,
1953-54
(Can.), 597(1) (b), as re-enacted by 48,
Parties to offences-Carrying out common unlawful purpose-Attempt to commit robbery-Killing by one participant- Charge to jury-The
Criminal
Code,
4. Offence triable in two ways-Effect withdrawal of information-Charge laid more than months after commission offence-Rights of Crown counsel and accused.
Conspiracy restraint of trade- Defences-Whether intended prevention lessening competition "undue"-Validity indictment-Whether different offences created by the Criminal Code,
R.S.C. 1927, 36, 498(1) (d)-Application and effect of the Combines Investigation Act, R.S.C. 1927, 26, enacted by (2nd sess.), renumbered and amended by c. 39, 6, The Interpretation
R.S.C. 1952, Criminal sexual psychopaths - Sufficiency evidence - Whether accused "likely" to act as set out in the Criminal Code,
1953-54 (Can.), 659(b) -Meaning of "inflict"-Validity legislation.
CROWN.
1. Liability-Negligence-Necessity showing cause of action against particular servant of Crown-The Crown Liability Act, 1952-53 (Can.), 30, ss. 3(1), 4(2). Wages of Crown employees-Special provisions in Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada.
v. THE
DAMAGES.
Reassessment on appeal-No interference Supreme
Court unless exceptional circumstances shown.
DEEDS AND DOCUMENTS. Invalidity-When inscription en faux required-Forgery of bail bond.
DIVORCE.
Remarriage-Validity and effect of legislation-The
Matrimonial
Causes (Eng.), 85, 57-An Act to amend the Law relating to Divorce and Matrimonial
Causes
England,
R.S.B.C. 1936, 76, 38, as amended by 1938, v. 768.
Admissibility-Res gestae-Conduct accused driver immediately after acci ent
-Relevance to issue anterior negligence.
v. THE
FRANCHISES.
Supply of natural gas-Powers and discretion of Ontario Fuel Board-"Public convenience and necessity"-Powers
1954 (Ont.),
GIFTS.
Interpretation-Whether gift in usufruct or in substitution-Effect of sheriff's sale
-Civil
Code, arts. 443, 925, 928, 959- Code of Civil Procedure, art.
afAL 643.
HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Covenants in marriage contract-Limits art.
INFANTS.
1. Custody-Matters to be considered by Court-Separation of parents-Residence in foreign jurisdiction-The Equal
Guardianship of Infants Act, R.S.B.C.
2. Custody-Welfare of child-Award custody to strangers in blood rather than to father.
Neglected children-Determination child's settlement-Whether determination may be reopened on further application for declaration that child defective-The Child Welfare Act, R.S.N.S. 1954, 30, ss. 30(1), 83(2).
Prima facie right natural parents Automobile taken by minor son owner-Whether father injury negligence-No minority taken against father-Minor not pr6pos6 of his father-Civil Code, arts.
1054- The Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q. INSURANCE.
1. Life-Non-payment renewal premium -Days grace-Due date falling on non-juridical day-The Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1950,
Co., 428.
Life insurance-Ordinary beneficiary- Whether proceeds of policy part of "estate" of insured for purposes of The Dependants' Relief Act, R.S.O. c. 2(1)- The Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1950, s.
insurance-Special Whether automobile owned by "person the household" insured-The Insurance Act, R.S.O. 207, 212(b), JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS. Effect of judgment on reference-The Constitutional Questions Act, R.S.S. 78-The Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 259,
C.P.R. 365. 1. Validity-Nullity based on invalid judgment-How asserted-Opposition to judgment-Code of Civil Procedure, arts. 784.
Duty
Allegation of conspiracy between buyer and sheriff's officer-Whether sheriff's officer obtained reasonable price for goods sold-Evidence of value.
LABOUR LAW.
Unincorporated trade union-Liability of officers for wrongful acts towards members-Whether members' rights based status or on contract-Whether union other members liable for wrongful acts of officers.
v. 436.
MASTER AND SERVANT.
Injuries to passengers taxicab- Whether driver in the performance of the work for which he was employed-Civil
Code, art. 1054.
MINES AND MINERALS.
1. Petroleum and natural gas "lease"- Terms and effect of document-Ademption of legacy.
"Droit de mine"-Nature of right- Effect of reservation-Prescription-Civil
Code, art. 1016.
Tnovsco
MOTOR VEHICLES.
Negligence-Statutory burden of proof- Whether burden discharged by defendant- Killing of pedestrian-The Vehicles and
Highway
Traffic Act, R.S.A.
1942,
275, 94(1).
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. statutory provisions-Action against City of Montreal arising from backing up of water from sewers-Elements of defence under city charter, art. 536c, enacted by 1939 (Que.),
104, Powers-Special statutory provisions- Provision of "pure and wholesome" water supply-The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953 (Ont.), 73, NARCOTIC DRUGS. Possession-What constitutes-Physical possession of package without knowledge of true nature of contents-The Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, R.S.C. 1952, 4(1)
v. 531.
NEGLIGENCE.
Defences-Volenti non fit injuria-What must be established-Implied assumption of risk with full knowledge of its nature and extent-Driver known to passenger to PUBLIC UTILITIES. Jurisdiction of Public Utilities Commission to issue certificate of public convenience and necessity without consent municipality affected-The Public Utilities Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, 277, 14- The Gas Utilities Act, 1954 (B.C.), 3-The Municipal Act, R.S.B.C., c. 232, as amended.
RAILWAYS.
Exemption from taxation-Special agreement-Construction-Properties on branch lines "required and used for the construction and working" of main line.
C.P.R. 367. 1. Effect of plan of subdivision-Right of way shown on plan but not included in subdivision-"Access"-The Registry Act,
R.S.O. 1950, c. 336, ss. 84(1), (5), (14),
89(1)-The Surveys Act, R.S.O.
1950, c. 381, s. 11(2).
V. GowErr,
ScoTT,
2. Land titles system-Effect of certificate
-Notation
"Minerals
Included"
erroneously made by registrar-Rights purchaser relying on certificate-The Land
Titles Act, R.S.S. 1953, c. 108, ss. 66,
67, 200(1).
THE PRUDENTIAL TRUST
Assistance toveterans-Effect of conveyance of land-Mines and minerals-No express reservation in agreement-Effect of acceptance and registration of transfer- Incorrect reference to statute-The Soldier
Settlement
Acts,
1919 (Can.),
57-The Public
Lands Grants Act, R.S.C. 1952, 224.
REVENUE.
Customs and excise-Electric motor imported as replacement to be installed in electric shovel-Whether dutiable under item 445g or 427a Sched. of the
Customs Tariff,
R.S.C.
1952,
Whether "otherwise provided for".
1. Nullity-Error and false representation
-Whether unreasonable delay in taking action to annul.
2. Action to annul-Ordinary warranty- Latent defects-Whether action tardy- Whether recourse in damages-Civil Code, arts. 1530, 1918 et seq.
SALE OF GOODS.
Special terms and conditions-Withdrawal of goods not yet "delivered"- What constitutes delivery.
SHIPPING.
Limitation of liability for loss-Tug and tow-Negligence of persons in charge tug-The Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. 1952, 29, 2(61), 657(1).
& Co. STATUTES
1.-Act Respecting Communistic Propaganda, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 52.......... 2.-Act to amend the Law relating to Divorce and Matrimonial Causes England, R.S.B.C. 1936, 38, as amended by 1938, .......... 3.- Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 3, as amended by 1950, and 1952, 1.....................
Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1950, 36, 24(1), (11).. Canada Shipping Act, R.S.C. c. 29, 2(61), 657(1)............... 6.-Child Welfare Act, R.S.N.S. 1954, 30, 30 83(2)............... 7.-Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 1941, c. 233, s. 488..................
476, 512 Combines Investigations Act, R.S.C. c. 26, enacted by 1949 (2nd sess.), renumbered and amended by c. 39, 8...............
9.- Conditional
Sales
Act, R.S.N.B. 1952, c. 34, s. 10.................... STATUTES-Continued
-Constitutional
Questions Act, R.S.
1953, 78......................
11.-Criminal
Code,
1953-54
660(2) (a)..................
LAw
Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.),
597(1)(b), as re-enacted by
1956,
48, 19........................
13.-Criminal
Code,
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 36, s.498(1) (d).......................
15.-Criminal Code,
1953-54 s.659 (b)......................
16.-Crown Liability Act, 1952-53 (Can.), c.30, ss.3(1), 4(2)....................
17.-Customs
445g.........
18.-Dependant's
Relief
R.S.O.
1950, ss.1(e), 2(1).........
19.-Equal
Guardianship
Infants
Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, c.139 ............
20.-Excise Tax Act, R.S.C.1927, c.179, ss.86(1), 89(1), sched. III............
21.-Expropriation Act, R.S.C.1952,
106...............................
Products
Marketing c.131,
23.-Gas Utilities Act,
(B.C.), c.13, 3....................
......
c.52, s.73A(1) (a) (iii), enacted by 1950, c.40, s.32 (R.S.C.1952, c.148, s.82)....
STATUTES-Continued 25.- Income
Tax Act, c.52, ss.3, 4, 127(1) ...............
26.-Income Tax Act, as amended, ss.11, ....... Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. c.97, as amended, ss.4, 6........... 28.--Insurance s.146.............................
29.-Insurance Act, R.S.O.1950, c.183, s.161.............................
30.-Insurance Act, R.S.O.1950, c.183, ss.207, 212(b), 214.................. 31.-Interpretation Act, R.S.C.1952, c. 158, s.19..........................
32.- Judicature Act, R.S.O.1950, c.190, s.57(3)...........................
Land Titles Act, R.S.S.1953, c.108, ss.66, 67, 200(1)............
........ 34.- Matrimonial
Causes
(Eng.), c.85, s.57.................... Motor Vehicles Act, R.S.Q.1941, Municipal Act, R.S.O.1950, c.243, s.31...............................
Municipal Act, R.S.B.C.1948, c.232, as amended........................ 38.-Municipal Franchises Act, R.S.O. 248, ss.8, as amended and enacted by ss.2, 3......... Toronto Act, (Ont.), s.41... 569 Ontario
Fuel
Board Act, (Ont.), c.63........................
STATUTES-Continued
41.-Opium and Narcotic Drug Act,
R.S.C.1952, c.201, s.4(1) (d)..........
42.-Planning Act, R.S.O.1950, c.277, s.24(3)............................
43.-Planning Act, R.S.O.1950, c.277, ss.26(9), 29(1)......................
44.-Public Lands Grants Act, R.S.C.
1952, c. 4........................
See 3.
45.-Public Utilities Act, R.S.B.C.1948, c.277, ss.12, 14......................
46.- Quebec
Companies
R.S.Q.
ss.82, 86................
47.-Registry Act, R.S.O.1950, c.336, ss.84(1), (5), 89(1)..............
See 1.
48.--Social Services Tax Act, R.S.B.C.
1948, as amended by
2nd sess., ss.13, 25..................
49.-Soldier Settlement Act, 1917 (Can.), c.21..............................
50.-Soldier Settlement Act, 1919 (Can.), c.71, s.57.........................
51.--Supreme Court Act, R.S.C.1952, c.259, s.44......................
52.-Supreme Court Act, R.S.C.1952, c.259, s.55......................
53.-Supreme Court Act, R.S.C.1952, c.259, ss.36(a), 43...................
54.---Surveys
R.S.O.1950, c.381, s.11(2).............................
Vehicles and Highway Traffic Act,
R.S.A. s.94(1)...........
56.-Water
Carriage
Goods c.49
(R.S.C.1952, s.3 and sched., art. III(1), (2), art. IV
(2)...........................
TAXATION.
1. Income tax-Undistributed income of company-Capital losses and gains-The Income Tax Act, 1948 (Can.), 52, 73A (1) (a) (iii), enacted by 1950, 40, (R.S.C. 1952, 148, 82).
2. Municipal land taxes-"Immoveables" -Machinery placed in a building and used in the operation of an industry-Whether immoveable by destination-Meaning of "A perp6tuelle demeure"-Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q.
233, 488-Civil Code, arts. 379, 380.
Municipal land taxes-"Immoveables" -Telephone switchboard telephone exchange building-Whether immoveable by destination-Cities and Towns Act, R.S.Q. 233, 488-Civil Code, arts. 379, 380.
512,
4. Sales tax-Whether awnings, canopies, marquees and umbrellas are "prepared roofings"-The Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, ss. 86(1), 89(1), sched. III. 5. Income tax-What is "profit from business"-Dealings in foreign exchange-The Income Tax Act, 1948 (Can.), 52, ss. 3, 4, 127(1) (e).
TIP Top
Provincial sales tax-Failure of seller to remit taxes collected-Remedies of Commissioner-Inspection, "estimate", "assessment"-Retrospective operation of statute Social Services Tax Act, R.S.B.C. 1948, 333, as amended by 1953, 2nd c. 36, ss. 25.
F.W.
Approval plan by Minister-Subsequent withdrawal of approval-Application for reinstatement-Jurisdiction of Minister and Ontario Municipal Board-The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1950, 277, 26(9),
29(1).
TRIAL.
Trial judge dispensing with jury-Nature of order-Discretion-The Judicature Act,
R.S.O. 1950, 57(3)-The Supreme
Court Act, R.S.C. 259, 44.
TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES.
1. Alteration terms of trust by Court- Limits on jurisdiction-"Salvage" rule- Whether trustee guilty of breach of trust.
CROQUIP v.
2. Resulting trusts-Creation of joint bank account-Presumptions from relationship.
V. 599.
WILLS.
Dependants' relief-What constitutes
"estate"
of testator-Insurance policies payable to ordinary beneficiary-The Dependants' Relief Act, R.S.O. 1950,
1(e), 2(1).
v. 516.
WORDS AND PHRASES.
1.-"Access" (The Registry Act, R.S.O
1950, c.336, s.84(14) ) ..............
See
"Assessment"
(Social Services Tax
Act, R.S.B.C.1948, as amended
1953, 2nd c.36, s.25).............
See
3.-"Deal with" (Child Welfare Act,
R.S.N.S. 1954, s.83(2) )......... 400
4.-"Estate" (The Dependants' Relief
Act, R.S.O.1950, c.101, s.2(1) ) .......
WORDS AND PHRASES-Concluded 5.-"Estimate"
(Social
Services Tax Act, R.S.B.C.1948, c.33, as amended by 1953, 2nd sess., c.36, s.13)............ 6.-"If required" (The Public Utilities Act, R.S.B.C.1948, c.277, s.14)....... 7.-"In good faith" (The Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act, R.S.O.1950, c.36, s.24(1), (11) )....................... 8.-"Inflict" (Criminal
Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c.51, s.659(b) )............... 685 See 6. 9.-"Interest in land"
Expropriation Act, R.S.C.1952, c.106) ...... See 2. 10.-"Leading persistently a criminal life" (Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c.51, s.575C(1) (a) )...................... See 1. 11.-"Likely" (Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), c.51, s.659(b) )............... 685 See 6. 12.-"Not otherwise provided for" (Customs Tariff, R.S.C.1952, sched. items 427a, 445g)................... See
"Prepared roofings"
(Excise Tax Act, R.S.C.1927, c.179, sched. III).... See 4.
"Profit from business" (Income Tax Act, 1948 (Can.), c.52) ..............
See
15.-"Public convenience and necessity" (The Municipal Franchises Act, R.S.O. 1950, c.248, s.8, as amended and enacted by 1954, c.60, ss.2, 3)................ See
16.-"Pure and wholesome" (The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 1953 (Ont.), c.73, s.41).............. See 17.-"Special reasons" (Criminal Code, 1953-54 (Can.), s.595(1) (b), as re-enacted by c.48, s.19) ........ See 2.
"Used in the business" (Income War Tax Act, R.S.C. 1927, c.97, as amended, s.5(1) (b) )........................ 717