Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, (2004) 325 N.R. 369 (SCC)
Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ. |
Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
Case Date | October 01, 2004 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2004), 325 N.R. 369 (SCC);2004 SCC 60 |
Glykis v. Que. Hydro (2004), 325 N.R. 369 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. OC.003
Hydro-Québec (appellant) v. Modestos Glykis and Eleftheria Theodossiou Glykis (respondents)
(29588; 2004 SCC 60; 2004 CSC 60)
Indexed As: Glykis v. Hydro-Québec
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
October 1, 2004.
Summary:
Glykis owned a rental property and a residence. He did not pay his power bill for the rental property. Hydro-Québec cut power at his residence. After a few days, Glykis paid his bill. Power was restored at the residence. Glykis and his wife sued Hydro-Québec for damages resulting from the interruption of service.
The Quebec Superior Court dismissed the action. The Glykis' appealed.
The Quebec Court of Appeal, Mailhot, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at [2003] R.J.Q. 36, allowed the appeal. Hydro-Québec appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel and Fish, JJ., dissenting, allowed the appeal. Arbour, J., did not take part in the judgment.
Public Utilities - Topic 3088
Rates - Collection - Right to interrupt service - Section 99(1) of Bylaw No. 411 establishing the conditions governing the supply of electricity, (1987) 119 G.O. II, 1918, provided that Hydro-Québec could interrupt electricity service when the customer failed to pay his bill on time - The customer here had two service points - He failed to pay at one of them - Hydro-Québec interrupted service at the other one - Was Hydro-Québec entitled to do so? - The Supreme Court of Canada answered yes given: (1) the ordinary meaning of ss. 3 (the definition section) and 99(1) of the above regulatory provision; (2) the scheme and object of the provision; and (3) the legislative history - The court also ruled that arts. 1590 (right of creditor to "take any other measure provided by law" to enforce performance of an obligation) and 1591 (right of creditor under a synallagmatic contract to refuse to perform a "correlative" obligation when debtor failed to perform his) of the Civil Code of Québec incorporated Hydro-Québec's power to interrupt service.
Quebec Obligations - Topic 5003
Breach of obligations - General - Remedies - General - [See Public Utilities - Topic 3088 ].
Cases Noticed:
Boucher v. Commission hydro-électrique de Québec, [1968] R.P. 347 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 3].
Godbout v. Hydro-Québec, [2001] R.D.I. 106 (Que. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 3].
Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 5].
Montreal Gas Co. v. Cadieux, [1899] A.C. 589 (P.C.), reving. (1898), 28 S.C.R. 382, consd. [paras. 26, 42].
Statutes Noticed:
Civil Code of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1590 [para. 30]; art. 1591 [paras. 31, 43].
Conditions governing the supply of electricity, Bylaw No. 411 establishing the - see Hydro-Québec Regulations (Que.).
Hydro-Québec Act Regulations (Que.), Bylaw No. 411 establishing the conditions governing the supply of electricity, (1987) 119 G.O. II, 1918, sect. 3 [paras. 8, 9], sect. 10 [para. 10]; sect. 99 [para. 7].
Counsel:
Jules Brière, Hélène Gauvin and Jacinte Lafontaine, for the appellant;
Jérôme Choquette, Q.C., and Jean-Stéphane Kourie, for the respondents.
Solicitors of Record:
Lavery, deBilly, Québec, Quebec, for the appellant;
Choquette Beaupré Rhéaume, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard on April 13, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages on October 1, 2004, and the following reasons were filed. Arbour, J., did not take part in the judgment:
Deschamps, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 35;
LeBel and Fish, JJ., dissenting - see paragraphs 36 to 46.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mosten Investments LP v The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife Financial),,
...principle of statutory interpretation: Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217, at para. 19; Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285, at para. 5; R. Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th ed. 2008), at p. 368. As Binnie J. explained in......
-
Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, [2006] 2 SCR 513
...6; Canadian Pacific Air Lines Ltd. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Assn., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724; Glykis v. Hydro‑Québec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285, 2004 SCC 60; Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 425, 2005 SCC 70;......
-
Amaratunga v Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization,
...v. Iraq, 2010 SCC 40, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 571; Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217; Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re)......
-
Ferme Vi‑Ber inc. v. Financière agricole du Québec, [2016] 1 SCR 1032
...v. Financière agricole, 2006 QCCS 1620; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC 30, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504; Glykis v. Hydro‑Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285; Financière agricole du Québec v. Forand, 2009 QCCQ 10263; Martel Building Ltd. v. Canada, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 860; ......
-
Mosten Investments LP v The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife Financial),,
...principle of statutory interpretation: Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217, at para. 19; Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285, at para. 5; R. Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th ed. 2008), at p. 368. As Binnie J. explained in......
-
Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, [2006] 2 SCR 513
...6; Canadian Pacific Air Lines Ltd. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Assn., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 724; Glykis v. Hydro‑Québec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285, 2004 SCC 60; Merk v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 771, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 425, 2005 SCC 70;......
-
Amaratunga v Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization,
...v. Iraq, 2010 SCC 40, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 571; Contino v. Leonelli-Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217; Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re)......
-
Amaratunga v. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, [2013] 3 SCR 866
...Corp. v. Iraq, 2010 SCC 40, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 571; Contino v. Leonelli‑Contino, 2005 SCC 63, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 217; Glykis v. Hydro‑Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 285; Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 26, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 533; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re......
-
Tracing the Evolution and History of a Regulation
...the course of the original trial, the trial judge “traced the evolution of the GDOTA and its Regulations from 1 Glykis v Hydro uebec 2004 SCC 60 at para 5 [emphasis added]. 2 Ruth Sulivan, Sulivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed (Markham, ON: LexisNexis, 2014) at 661 [Sulivan, Const......
-
Statutory Instruments, Royal Prerogative, and Delegated Legislation
...[Sulivan, Construction , 6th]. 62 Elmer Dreidger, Construction of Statutes (Toronto: Buterworths, 1974) at 67. 63 Glykis v Hydro-uébec , 2004 SCC 60 at para 5 [emphasis added]. 64 Elmer Dreidger, Construction of Statutes , 2d ed (Toronto: Buterworths, 1983) at 247. Chapter Ten: Statutory In......