This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: S.C.R SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 121 FRANK RONCARELLI Plaintiff APPELLANT Jun 23 AND 456 1959 THE HONOURABLE MAURICE DUPLESSIS Defendant RESPONDENT Jan.27 ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH APPEAL SIDE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC CrownOfficers of the CrownPowers and responsibilitiesPrime Minister and Attorney-GeneralQuebec Liquor CommissionCan cellation of licence to sell liquorWhether made at instigation of Prime Minister and Attorney-GeneralThe Alcoholic Liquor Act R.S.Q 1941 255The Attorney-Generals Department Act .R.SQ 1941 46The Executive Power Act RJS.Q 1941 LicencesCancellation-Motives of cancellationD one on instigation of Prime Minister and Attorney-General-Whether liability in damagesWhether notice under art 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure required PEESENT Kerwin C.J and Taschereau Rand Locke Cartwright Fauteux Abbott Martland and Judson JJ 67294-9---1 122 SUPREME COURT OF CANADA 1959 The plaintiff the proprietor of restaurant in Montreal and the holder RowcAasrnu of licence to sell intoxicating liquor sued the defendant personally for damages arising out of the cancellation of his licence by the DUPLES5IS Quebec Liquor Commission He alleged that the licence had been arbitrarily cancelled at the instigation of the defendant who without legal powers in the matter had given orders to the Commission to cancel it before its expiration This was done it was alleged to punish the plaintiff member of the Witnesses of Jehovah because he had acted as bailsman for large number of members of his sect charged with the violation of municipal by-laws in connection with the distribution of literature The trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff for part of the damages claimed The defendant appealed and the plaintiff seeking an increase in the amount of damages cross-appealed The Court of Appeal dismissed the action and the cross-appeal Held Taschereau Cartwright and Fauteux JJ dissenting The action should be maintained and the amount awarded at trial should be increased by $25000 By wrongfully and without legal justification causing the cancellation of the permit the defendant became liable for damages under art 1053 of the Cihil Code Per Kerwin C.J The trial judge correctly decided that the defendant ordered the Commission to cancel the licence and no satisfactory reason has been advanced for the Court of Appeal setting aside that finding of fact Per Kerwin C.J and Locke and Martland JJ There was ample evidence to sustain the finding of the trial judge that the cancellation of the permit was the result of an order given by the defendant to the manager of the Commission There was therefore relationship of cause and effect between the defendants acts and the cancellation of the permit The defendant was not acting in the exercise of any of his official powers There was no authority in the Attorney-Generals Department Act the Executive Power Act or the Alcoholic Liquor Act enabling the defendant to direct the cancellation of permit under the Alcoholic Liquor...
View Full Document