Hall v. Hebert, (1993) 152 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 06, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 152 N.R. 321 (SCC);[1993] 2 SCR 159;1993 CanLII 141 (SCC);152 NR 321;[1993] CarswellBC 92;101 DLR (4th) 129;26 BCAC 161;78 BCLR (2d) 113;[1993] SCJ No 51 (QL);[1993] 4 WWR 113;15 CCLT (2d) 93;[1993] ACS no 51;45 MVR (2d) 1

Hall v. Hebert (1993), 152 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Vincent Hall v. Jean Hebert, also known as Joseph Jean Claude Hebert

(22399)

Indexed As: Hall v. Hebert

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé,

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ.

April 29, 1993.

Summary:

Hebert and Hall left a party in Hebert's souped-up muscle car. Alcohol had been consumed at the party and more was con­sumed after leaving. When the ignition keys were lost on a rough road, it was decided to start the car by "a rolling start". Hall asked if he could drive. Hebert said okay. Hall lost control. The car left the road and went down a steep slope. It was subsequently discovered that Hall had sustained significant head injuries. Hall submitted that Hebert was negligent in allowing him to drive the car knowing that he was impaired. Hebert invoked the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio on the ground that both were engaged in a criminal enterprise (i.e., drink­ing in a public place) and that he could not be held liable.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at (1989), 14 A.C.W.S.(3d) 102 (supplementary reasons at 15 A.C.W.S.(3d) 382), allowed Hall's claim. However, the court found Hall contributorily negligent and 25% at fault. Hebert appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 201; 6 C.C.L.T.(2d) 294; 46 C.P.C.(2d) 192; 28 M.V.R.(2d) 94, allowed the appeal on the ground Hebert owed no duty of care to Hall. Alternatively, the principle of ex turpi causa was applicable. Hall appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and permitted Hall's claim. However, the court reapportioned liability on a 50/50 basis.

Torts - Topic 345

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Passengers - Contributory negligence of driver or passenger - General - Hebert and Hall drove to a baseball field in Hebert's souped-up muscle car and drank some beer - Later, the car keys were lost - They decided to start the vehicle by push­ing it downhill - Hebert allowed Hall to drive even though he knew Hall had con­sumed eleven or twelve bottles of beer, three of those in the last hour - Hall lost control and was injured - Hall sued - Hebert invoked the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio claiming that the illegal act of consuming alcohol in a pub­lic place precluded an action by Hall - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Hall's action but limited recovery to 50% because of contributory negligence.

Torts - Topic 399.7

Negligence - Motor vehicle - Standard of care of driver - Permitting incompetent or impaired driver to drive - [See Torts - Topic 345 ].

Torts - Topic 6610

Defences - Contributory negligence - Motor vehicle accidents - [See Torts - Topic 345 ].

Torts - Topic 6755

Defence - Joint ventures - To pursue an unlawful purpose - [See Torts - Topic 345 ].

Torts - Topic 6995

Defences - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - A tort action based on negligence came before the Supreme Court of Canada - The defendant submitted that the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio could be pleaded as a defence - The court stated "that there is a need in the law of tort for a principle which permits judges to deny recovery to a plaintiff on the ground that to do so would undermine the integrity of the justice system. The power is a limited one. Its use is justified where allowing the plaintiff's claim would allow inconsistency into the fabric of the law, either by per­mitting the plaintiff to profit from an illegal or wrongful act, or to evade a pen­alty prescribed by criminal law." - See paragraph 25.

Torts - Topic 6995

Defences - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - Hebert permitted an impaired passenger (Hall) to drive the vehicle - There was an accident - Hall sued Hebert in negligence - Hebert invoked the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (a plaintiff cannot profit from his own wrong) - Hall sub­mitted that the principle was not applicable in tort actions, only those in contract - Alternatively, Hall submitted that the principle was not a defence but merely an element negating a duty of care - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the principle of ex turpi causa was applicable in tort actions in limited circumstances - See paragraphs 1 to 26 - The court also held that the principle was a defence and not merely an element in determining whether there was a duty of care - See paragraphs 26 to 39.

Torts - Topic 6995

Defences - Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - [See Torts - Topic 345 ].

Cases Noticed:

Smith v. Jenkins (1970), 119 C.L.R. 397 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 8].

Lane v. Holloway, [1967] 3 All E.R. 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Gala v. Preston (1991), 172 C.L.R. 243 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 103].

Pitts v. Hunt, [1990] 3 All E.R. 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Joubert v. Toronto General Trusts Corp., [1955] 3 D.L.R. 685; 15 W.W.R.(N.S.) 654 (Man. C.A.), appld. [para. 8].

Rondos v. Wawrin (1968), 64 W.W.R.(N.S.) 690 (Man. C.A.), appld. [para. 8].

Tallow v. Tailfeathers, [1973] 6 W.W.R. 732 (Alta. C.A.), appld. [para. 8].

Foster v. Morton (1956), 4 D.L.R.(2d) 269 (N.S.C.A.), not folld. [para. 8].

Mack v. Enns (1983), 44 B.C.L.R. 145 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 52 N.R. 235 (S.C.C.), not folld. [para. 8].

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia v. Mack et al. - see Mack v. Enns.

Betts v. Sanderson Estate (1988), 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), not folld. [paras. 8, 67].

Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. et al., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 452; 47 N.R. 191, consd. [para. 11].

Dubé v. Labar, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 649; 68 N.R. 91, consd. [paras. 13, 78].

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186; 86 N.R. 241; 29 O.A.C. 1, consd. [paras. 13, 67].

Car & General Insurance Corp. v. Sey­mour, [1956] S.C.R. 322, refd to. [paras. 13, 77].

Lehnert v. Stein, [1963] S.C.R. 38, refd to. [paras. 13, 76, 77].

Burns v. Edman, [1970] 1 All E.R. 886 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Meadows v. Ferguson, [1961] V.R. 594 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Lewis v. Brannen (1909), 65 S.E. 189 (Ga. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Harper v. Grasser (1915), 150 P. 1175 (Wash. S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

McNichols v. Simplot (J.R.) Co. (1953), 262 P.2d 1012 (Idaho S.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

Kato v. Briney (1971), 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Colburn v. Patmore (1834), 1 C.M. & R. 73; 149 E.R. 999 (Exch.), refd to. [para. 20].

Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 22].

Tomlinson v. Harrison, [1972] 1 O.R. 670, refd to. [para. 24].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728; [1977] 2 W.L.R. 1024; [1977] 2 All E.R. 492 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 26, 61].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 26, 61].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562; [1932] All E.R. Rep. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 30, 60].

McAlister (Donoghue) v. Stevenson - see Donoghue v. Stevenson.

Henwood v. Municipal Tramways Trust (1938), 60 C.L.R. 438 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Van­winkel, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 299; 143 N.R. 1; 147 N.R. 336, consd. [para. 62].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. - see London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel.

Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., [1969] 2 Q.B. 412; [1969] 2 All E.R. 564 (C.A.), consd. [para. 63].

Menow v. Hornsberger, [1974] S.C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 67].

Jordan House Ltd. v. Menow - see Menow v. Hornsberger.

Hempler v. Todd (1970), 14 D.L.R.(3d) 637 (Man. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 67].

Ontario (Hospital Services Commission) v. Borsoski (1973), 54 D.L.R.(3d) 339 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Butterfield v. Forrester (1809), 11 East. 60; 103 E.R. 926 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 71].

Davies v. Mann (1842), 10 M. & W. 546; 152 E.R. 588, refd to. [para. 72].

Eid v. Dumas, [1969] S.C.R. 668, refd to. [para. 77].

Progress & Properties Ltd. v. Craft (1976), 135 C.L.R. 651 (Aust. H.C.), consd. [para. 83].

Hegarty v. Shine (1878), 14 Cox C.C. 145 (Irish C.A.), consd. [para. 90].

Lewis v. Sayers, [1970] 3 O.R. 591; 13 D.L.R.(3d) 543 (Dist. Ct.), consd. [para. 102].

Jackson v. Harrison (1978), 138 C.L.R. 438 (Aust.), refd to. [para. 103].

National Coal Board v. England, [1954] 1 All E.R. 546 (H.L.), consd. [para. 104].

Harris v. Toronto Transit Commission, [1967] S.C.R. 460, refd to. [para. 110].

Miller v. Decker, [1957] S.C.R. 624, refd to. [para. 110].

Mack v. Enns (1981), 30 B.C.L.R. 337 (S.C.), varied 44 B.C.L.R. 145 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 52 N.R. 235 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 116].

Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 119].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), consd. [para. 119].

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, [1991] 1 A.C. 398; 113 N.R. 81; [1990] 2 All E.R. 908 (H.L.), consd. [para. 120].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1; [1990] 1 W.W.R. 385; 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 350; 64 D.L.R.(4th) 689, consd. [para. 121].

Dunn v. Dominion Atlantic Railway Co., [1920] 2 W.W.R. 705; 60 S.C.R. 310, refd to. [para. 125].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clerk, John Frederic, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts (16th Ed. 1989), Common Law Library No. 3, London: Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 112-113 [para. 75].

Crago, Neville H., The Defence of Illegal­ity in Negligence Actions (1964), 4 Melbourne Univ. L. Rev. 534 [para. 82].

Davis, Harold S., The Plaintiff's Illegal Act as a Defense in Actions of Tort (1904-05), 18 Harv. L. Rev. 505 [para. 82].

Debattista, Charles, Ex Turpi Causa Returns to the English Law of Torts: Taking Advantage of a Wrong Way Out (1984), 13 Anglo-Am. L. Rev. 15 [para. 82].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), Sydney: Law Book Co., pp. 265 [para. 75]; 278, footnote 41 [para. 104].

Ford, W.J., Tort and Illegality: The Ex Turpi Causa Defence in Negligence Law (1977-78), 11 Melbourne Univ. L. Rev. 32, pp. 164 [para. 82]; 184 [para. 94].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Wrongdoing Plain­tiff (1972), 18 McGill L.J. 275 [paras. 9, 82]; p. 293 [para. 104].

Gibson, D., Comment: Illegality of Plain­tiff's Conduct as a Defence (1969), 47 Can. Bar Rev. 89 [paras. 7, 82]; p. 92 [para. 91].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law, 1991, Toronto: Carswell, p. 299 [para. 71].

Legrand, Pierre, jr., La dynamique de l'impunité: autour de la défense d'ex turpi causa en common law des délits civils (1991), 36 McGill L.J. 609 [para. 82].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), Toronto: Butterworths, pp. 3 [para. 58]; 448-449 [para. 75].

MacDougall, Bruce, Ex Turpi Causa: Should a Defence Arise From a Base Cause? (1991), 55 Sask. L. Rev. 1 [paras. 9, 82].

Prosser, William L., Handbook of the Law of Torts (4th Ed. 1971), St-Paul: West Publishing Co., pp. 6 [para. 57]; 325-326 [para. 65]; 454 [para. 79].

Salmond, John William, Sir, Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts (19th Ed. 1987), By R.F.V. Heuston and R.A. Buckley, London: Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 557-558 [para. 75].

Salmond, John William, Sir, Salmond on Torts (17th Ed. 1977), By R.F.V. Heus­ton, London: Sweet & Maxwell, pp. 496 ff. [para. 75]; 512-513 [para. 72].

Swanton, Jane P., Plaintiff a Wrongdoer: Joint Complicity in an Illegal Enterprise as a Defence to Negligence (1981), 9 Sydney L. Rev. 304 [para. 82].

Weinrib, Ernest J., Illegality as a Tort Defence (1976), 26 U.T.L.J. 28 [paras. 9, 82]; pp. 41 [para. 16]; 42 [para. 17]; 51, 52-53 [para. 19].

Weinrib, Ernest J., The Special Morality of Tort Law (1989), 34 McGill L.J. 403, p. 408 [para. 31].

Williams, Glanville L., Joint Torts and Contributory Negligence (1951), London: Stevens & Sons, generally [para. 9]; pp. 333-335 [para. 105].

Winfield, Percy Henry, Winfield and Jolo­wicz on Tort (12th Ed. 1984), By M.V.H. Rogers, London: Sweet & Maxwell, p. 75 [para. 64].

Wright, Cecil A., Introduction to the Law of Torts (1944), 8 Cambridge L.J. 238 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Steven H. Heringa and Robert D. Kirkham, for the appellant;

James S. Carfra, Q.C., and Dean P.J. Law­ton, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Paine, Edmonds, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the appellant;

Carfra & Lawton, Victoria, British Colum­bia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 6, 1992, by La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on April 29, 1993, and the following opinions were filed:

McLachlin, J. (La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Iacobucci, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 41;

Cory, J. - see paragraphs 42 to 115;

Gonthier, J. - see paragraphs 116 to 117;

Sopinka, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 118 to 138.