Larochelle v. The Queen, (1974) 2 N.R. 494 (FCA)

• Judge: Jackett, C.J., Hyde, D.J. and St-Germain, D.J.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 14, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 2 N.R. 494 (FCA)

Larochelle v. Can. (1974), 2 N.R. 494 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Larochelle

Indexed As: Larochelle v. The Queen

Federal Court of Appeal

Jackett, C.J., Hyde, D.J. and St-Germain, D.J.

March 7, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application by the plaintiff for leave to amend the plaintiff's statement of claim. The plaintiff commenced an action against the Crown for damages for negligence by employees of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. Pursuant to a suggestion in an interlocutory judgment dated April 7, 1972, the plaintiff applied to add an allegation of negligence against employees of the Department of Transport. The Crown opposed the application and claimed that the proposed amendments constituted a new cause of action which was prescribed by Article 2261 of the Quebec Civil Code.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim. The Federal Court of Appeal held that such an amendment did not add a new cause of action. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the amendment alleged the necessary particulars of negligence.

Practice - Topic 2121

Pleadings - Amendment of a statement of claim to add particulars - The plaintiff commenced an action against the Crown and claimed damages for negligence by employees of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff to amend his statement of claim to allege negligence by employees of the Department of Transport - The Federal Court of Appeal held that such an amendment did not add a new cause of action - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the amendment alleged the necessary particulars of negligence.

Cases Noticed:

Moran et al. v. Pyle National (Canada) Ltd., (1973) 1 N.R. 122, folld. [para. 5].

Distillers Co. (Bio-Chemicals) Ltd. v. Thompson, [1971] 1 All E.R. 694, folld. [para. 6].

Cordova Land Co. Ltd. v. Victor Brothers Inc., [1966] 1 W.L.R. 793 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 6].

Page v. Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corp. Ltd., [1972] F.C. 1141, folld. [fn. 1].

Direct Motor Express Ltd. et al. v. Sinkovitel, [1969] Q.B. 695, folld. [para. 9].

Arnault v. Jacques, [1969] (Que.) S.C. 77, folld. [para. 10].

La Ville de Montreal Est v. Leonard (1937), 62 K.B. 524, folld. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Quebec Civil Code, art. 2224 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Denis Bouffard, for the appellant;

William Hesler, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Montreal, Quebec on March 14, 1974. Judgment was delivered from the bench on March 14, 1974.

The judgment of the court was delivered by HYDE, D.J.