Porteous v. Dorn, (1974) 2 N.R. 501 (SCC)

• Judge: Judson, Spence, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 06, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 2 N.R. 501 (SCC);1974 CanLII 157 (SCC);45 DLR (3d) 596;[1975] 2 SCR 37;[1974] 6 WWR 176

Porteous v. Dorn (1974), 2 N.R. 501 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Porteous v. Dorn

Indexed As: Porteous v. Dorn

Supreme Court of Canada

Judson, Spence, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

April 29, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim by a woman that she was a beneficiary of an estate. The woman claimed to be the lawful daughter of the testator who died intestate. The claimant alleged that her mother was married to the testator. The defendants opposed the woman's claim and alleged that the claimant's mother worked as a housekeeper for the testator. The defendants offered in evidence documents with respect to an action commenced by the claimant's mother against the testator for wages as a housekeeper. The defence also offered a written settlement of the action which provided for the payment of $3,000. to the claimant's mother in settlement of her claim for wages. The trial court held that the claimant was the lawful daughter of the testator.

On appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and it was held that the claimant was not the lawful daughter of the testator - see 37 D.L.R.(3d) 120.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Statement of Claim issued by the daughter's mother against the testator was admissible for the purpose of proving that the daughter's mother in 1946 claimed wages as a housekeeper from the testator - see paragraph 6.

The Supreme Court of Canada also held admissible the written settlement as a declaration as to pedigree relevant to the marital status of the testator - see paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 1628

Hearsay rule exceptions - Statement of decedents respecting pedigree - Action for a declaration as to the beneficiaries of an estate - Whether the claimant was a daughter of the testator - Whether the daughter's mother was married to the testator or worked as a housekeeper for the testator - The Supreme Court of Canada held admissible a written settlement between the testator and the daughter's mother which provided for the payment of $3,000. to the daughter's mother in settlement of a claim for wages - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the written settlement was admissible as a hearsay exception as a declaration as to pedigree relevant to the marital status of the testator - See paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 3353

Documentary evidence - Judicial proceedings - Pleadings - Action for a declaration as to the beneficiaries of an estate - Whether the claimant was a daughter of the testator - Whether the daughter's mother was married to the testator or worked as a housekeeper for the testator - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a statement of claim was admissible for the purpose of proving that the daughter's mother in 1946, made a claim for wages as a housekeeper against the testator - See paragraph 6.

Evidence - Topic 3350

Documentary evidence - Judicial proceedings - Pleadings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that generally pleadings are admissible in subsequent proceedings to prove the institution of an action and the facts in issue between the parties but not to prove the truth of the facts stated - See paragraph 6.

Words and Phrases

Pedigree - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "pedigree" in the law of evidence - See paragraph 6.

Cases Noticed:

Taplin, Watson v. Tate, [1937] 3 All E.R. 105, folld. [para. 3].

Taylor v. Taylor and another, [1961] 1 All E.R. 55, folld. [para. 3].

Haynes v. Carter (1906), 94 T.L.R. 431, folld. [para. 3].

Lyell v. Kennedy (1889), 14 A.C. (H.L.) 437, folld. [para. 6].

Berkeley Peerage (1811), 4 Camp. 401, folld. [para. 6].

Pejepscot Paper Co. v. Farren, [1933] S.C.R. 388, folld. [para. 6].

Counsel:

W.G. Burke-Robertson, Q.C., for the appellant;

K.R. MacLeod, Q.C. and B.J. Scherman, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on March 6, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on April 29, 1974.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by DICKSON, J.