1917 (1) TMI 3 - Other - Indian Laws

Board affirms judgment despite jury irregularities. Bias allegations dismissed. Excessive damages issue pending. Appeal dismissed for procedural reasons.

Montreal Street Railway Company Versus Normandin

Montreal Street Railway Company Versus Normandin - TMI Issues Involved:1. Constitution and jurisdiction of the jury.2. Alleged bias and improper communication with jurors.3. Excessiveness of damages awarded.4. Proper procedure for setting aside the judgment.5. Validity of the jury list and statutory compliance.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitution and Jurisdiction of the Jury:The appellants contended that the jury was not duly constituted and was without jurisdiction, citing irregularities in the jury panel's formation. Specifically, they argued that the jury list was not revised as required by the Revised Statutes of Quebec, which prescribe detailed procedures for the annual revision of jury lists. The Superior Court, sitting as the Court of Review, upheld the judgment in favor of the plaintiff despite these claims. Monet J. found that while there were breaches in the statutory provisions, the appellants did not prove any prejudice suffered as a result. The Board agreed, emphasizing that the neglect of statutory provisions, though serious, did not render the trial null and void, especially since the prothonotary used an existing list and the names were taken in proper rotation.2. Alleged Bias and Improper Communication with Jurors:The appellants alleged that one juror, Hector Barsalou, was related to the plaintiff and that there were improper communications between the plaintiff, his relatives, and the jurors. The judge found that Hector Barsalou was not related by affinity to the plaintiff and that any acquaintance did not amount to bias. The claim of improper communications was also dismissed as it was not substantiated by credible evidence. The Court of Review adopted these findings, and the Board saw no reason to differ from the judge who heard the witnesses directly.3. Excessiveness of Damages Awarded:The issue of whether the damages awarded were excessive was not decided in this appeal but was pending the decision of this appeal. The Board did not address this issue in detail as it was standing over.4. Proper Procedure for Setting Aside the Judgment:The appellants used a 'requete civile' to seek the revocation of the judgment, which was initially dismissed by Beaudin J. for being an improper procedure. However, the Court of King's Bench allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Superior Court for proof and hearing. Monet J. dismissed the petition on the merits, and the Court of Review affirmed this decision. The Board noted that the decision of the King's Bench on the procedural appropriateness of the 'requete civile' was not appealed, and thus it was not open for reconsideration. The Board also refrained from expressing an opinion on procedural matters specific to Quebec courts unless necessary.5. Validity of the Jury List and Statutory Compliance:The appellants argued that the trial was coram non judice due to the use of an outdated jury list, which was not revised as required by law. The Board considered the principles of statutory interpretation, noting that provisions related to public duties are often deemed directory rather than imperative, especially when non-compliance does not cause prejudice. The Board held that the neglect of the sheriff's duties did not invalidate the jury list, as the prothonotary used an existing list, and the names were taken in proper order. The Board emphasized that holding all jury trials null and void due to such neglect would cause significant public inconvenience and injustice.Conclusion:The Board concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged irregularities and affirmed the judgment of Monet J. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the Board saw no reason to interfere with the interlocutory orders regarding costs.