CASE and COMMENT
McEWEN v. JENKINS AND BRADLEY et al
Will – Annulment – Insanity – Plaintiff particular legatee –
Heirs at law – Executors sued personally – Interest in the will
– Power of attorney – Burden of proof- C.C. 232, 349, 351,
831, 919, 981a and foil., 985, 986.
by Arnold Sharp*
The Supreme Court, due to the necessary implication which must be deduced
from the recent decision handed down in the case of McEwen v. Jenkins and
Bradley,’ has indicated its position in a controversy which has been evident
both in the doctrine and jurisprudence of Quebec civil law. The two predom-
inating schools of thought that have developed as a result of conflicting inter-
pretations of the law are concerned with the nature of the nullity which attaches
to acts of insane persons not having received the protection of legal interdiction.
John Calvin Holland, in his eighty-fourth year, bequeathed his property
to defendant Charles Ruiter Jenkins and Wesley H. Bradley (mis en cause) in
trust as executors and trustees. Holland suffered a stroke on January 20, 1948
and was hospitalized until his death on March 15, 1949. Previous to his death,
while in hospital, he executed a power of attorney before witnesses in favor of
Jenkins on January 30, 1948. Holland was at no time interdicted. The plaintiff,
Dame McEwen, a cousin of the deceased and one of his heirs at law instituted
an action against the defendant and Bradley personally to have it declared that
J. C. Holland was not, after January 20, 1948, of sound and disposing mind,
memory or judgment, and that he was incapable of assenting to, and under-
standing any act of alienation of his property and was under undue influence,
power, and control of the defendant Jenkins. She asked for the will and the
power of attorney to be set aside as null and void and that accounts be rendered
by Bradley and Jenkins.
In the court of first instance, Mitchell J. declared the will and the power
of attorney null and void; for, once the presumption of mental capacity had been
rebutted by the presentation of a prima facie case of incapacity, the defendants
had failed to establish that the testator was, at such time, of sound intellect
and capable of alienating his property. Jenkins was ordered to render an
account of his administration under the power of attorney.
*Of the Junior Board of Editors, McGill Law Journal; Second Year Law Student.
‘[1958] S.C.R. 719.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 7
Dame McEwen, not satisfied with this remedy in that no accounting had
been ordered from Bradley as executor and trustee, appealed; Jenkins was the
only person to file a cross appeal.
The Court of Appeal, by majority judgement, dismissed the appeal, declared
valid the power of attorney on the cross appeal; but as to the question of the
will, it maintained the decision of the trial court which held the will invalid.
The Court of Appeal pointed out that since no interested party had appealed
the point, it was res judicata.
Jenkins argued before the Court of Appeal that an action to annul the power
of attorney, if it existed, would be vested in Holland’s legal representatives.
Once his will was set aside his heirs at law, not some of them but all of them,
must be plaintiffs or at least parties to the action. The necessity for this rule is
to avoid a plurality of actions. 2 Mr. Justice Hyde agreed that this is the rule
to be applied where one is dealing with a relative nullity such as the incapacity
of minors and of persons interdicted for prodigality. He maintains, however,
that this case does not deal with a question of relative nullity but rather an
absolute nullity.
I am of the opinion that if the plaintiff can establish Holland’s incapacity at the time of
execution of the power of attorney, an essential element of the contract [consent] would bc
missing and it would be an absolute and radical nullity which she, as an interested person,
would be entitled to ask the Court to declare.
Justice Hyde looks to the French civil law and notes that art. 1124 C.N.
does not include non-interdicted insane in its terms as does art. 986 C.C. He
states, however, that the natural incapacity of such persons is recognized by the
French jurists despite the omission, and being unable to provide the essential
element of consent, the contracts entered into by them are considered absolute
nullities. The learned Judge maintains that it is evident our codifiers, by
including the fifth paragraph in art. 986, did not intend to depart from the
French law but wished to make certain that it was carried on into our code.
Thus the Appeal Court has, in the McEwen case, upheld the theory that absolute
nullity attaches itself to the acts of a non-interdicted insane person.
The view expressed by Justice Hyde is a direct contradiction of the doctrine
stated by Mignault who maintains these acts are attached with a relative
nullity. This statement is justified by the rather specious argument that
because it is so declared in respect of interdicted persons it must, with even
greater reason, apply to persons who have not even been interdicted.
I1 est 1 peine ncessaire d’ajouter que Ia personne ali~n~e ou ses reprsentants, peuvent
seuls demander ‘annulation du contrat. L’article 987 C.C. -a la v6rit6, ne parle que des interdits,
mais cc qui est vrai de ceux-ci, P’est i plus forte raison de ceux qui nont pas 6t6 frapps d’inter-
diction. Dans cc cas comme dans l’autre; Ia nullit6 est relative. 4
2Davidson v. Cream (1897) 6 Q.B. 34 at 43.
3Hyde J. [1955] B.R. 800.
4Mignault, Traiti de Droit Civil Canadien Vol. 5 P. 196.
No. 2]
CASE AND COMMENT
The learned Judge in the case of Cbarlehbois v. Tremblay5 relied on this state-
ment, maintaining:
II n’y a pas de distinction a faire entre les acres judiciaires et extra-judiciaires. Cet art. 987
C.C. s’appliqu’i plus forte raison aux alien~s qui n’ont pas fti interdits. 6
The Court, accepting the opinion expressed by Mignault, stated in Normandin
v. Nadon7 that the acts of an insane person are attached with a relative nullity:
L’incapacit6 qui d~coule de l’ali~nation mentale est une incapacit6 relative et non absolue;
c’cst une incapacit6 de protection et Fart. 78 C.P. doit 6tre lu avec les art. 986 et 987 C.C. qui
riglent
Taschereau J. cites the above case with approval in Rosconi v. Dubois:9
‘Ftat et la capacit6 des parties.”
M. Ic juge Archambault, dans un jugement tras 6labor6, fait une revue de ]a jurisprudence
et conclut avec raison que la nullit, des acres faits, soit par l’interdit, soit par la personne
souffrant d’ali~nation mentale notoire, n’est pas absolue, mais uniquement relative, et comme
clle est 6tablie en faveur de ces deux classes de personnes, elle ne peut Etre invoqu~e que par elles-
mimes ou leur repr~sentants 16gaux. 10
The learned Justice maintains that this principle must apply to art. 986 C.C.
par. 5,11 and in both art. 986 C.C. and art. 335 C.C. there is only a relative
nullity. He supports his argument by stating:
II serait en effet &range que l’acte ne soit qu’annulable sous 335 C.C. (qui n’est pas nul de
pcin droir) dans Ic cas oas il y a interdiction et que la notori&t6 est 6tablie, et que la nullit6 serait
It suffira de se rappeler que dans les
absoluc s’il n’y avait pas d’interdiction ni de notorikt.
deux cas la demande en annulation ne peut 6tre faite que par l’incapable lui-meme ou par son
reprisentant, cc qui ne serair pas le cas si la nullit6 avait un caract~re diff&ent et &ait absolue.12
The theorists, by applying a relative character of nullity to the acts of non-
interdicted insane persons, and the jurisprudence in which this concept is
crystallized, conclude that the sanction which results from these acts is one
whose end is of private interests and prescriptible nature. This sanction of
nullity may be invoked or ratified by the party the law wishes to protect.
Accordingly, an action to annul a juridical act entered into by one who is
insane, regardless of interdiction, may be taken only by the insane contractor
or his legal representatives. Thus no recourse is open to those parties with
whom the insane person has contracted.
This theory of relative nullity is strongly disputed by Trudel. In his re-
examination of the character of acts effected by one lacking mental capacity
he concludes that these acts are not relatively null but that the nullity which
attaches to them is absolute.
5[1943] B.R. 621.
611945) Rcrue Legale 367.
7 bij. at 361.
8lbid at 366.
[19511 S.C.R. 554.
10[1951] S.C.R. 554 at 576.
1Art. 986 (5) “Those legally incapable of contracting are . . . Persons insane or suffering a
temporary derangement of intellect arising from disease, accident, drunkenness, or other cause, or
who by reason of weakness of understanding are unable to give a valid consent.-
‘2[1951] S.C.R. 554 at 576.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 7
Ie contrat exige un consentement. L’incapacit6 naturclle exclut la possibilit6 d’un acte
de volont6 et rend tout contrat irrialisable. Les principes fondamcntaux de la convention
suflisaient 1 empecher la formation meme d’un contrar par une personne qui ne peut pas accom-
plir un acte d’intelligence, donner un consentement. L’art. 986 ne crie donc pas l’incapacit6,
11 la constate tout simplement; micux encore, il observe cue les facteurs dans ces circonstanccs
sont impuissants i satisfaire lessentiel rcquis pour l’existence d’un contrat. C’est du droit
naturel 06mentaire.
La conclusion semble 6vidente; le contrat n’est qu’une chimrc, c’est un n~ant. Plus que
nul, il n’a jamais exist&. C’esr la perfection de ce que Ia langue juridique dnomme inexactemcnt
une nullit, absolue radicale. Toute personne int&ress& serait recevablc a demander au tribunal
de constater pareille nullit6, de d&truirc cette apparencc trompeuse de contrat. Tels sont les
prolongements des lois fondamentales du consentement de sa n&cessit6 ontologique dans Ic
contrat.13
The more recent jurisprudence has reflected this absolute theory of nullity
expressed by Trudel. In the case of Quincy v. Kedroskie,’4 which dealt with the
right of a husband to take an action to annul his marriage on the grounds of
of lack of consent due to the insanity of his wife, the trial Judge cited Mignault
and held this action in nullity a relative one which therefore barred the plaintiff
from claiming the inexistence of the marriage. However, Barclay J. in the
Court of Appeal stated that the action was open to the husband as want of
consent resulting from insanity constitutes a complete nullity which may be
invoked by any person interested. He cites Mignault writing of “Les causes
des nullit~s absolues.”
Les nullitis de cette nature ont toutes pour fondement la violation d’un principe d’ordre
public; c’est pour cela qu’elles peuvent &re invoqucs en tout temps et par toute personne
int&essi c 5
Mignault continues to state seven causes which give rise to absolute nullity,
among them:
Le difaut absolu de consentement.
Ainsi, lorsqu’une personne atteinte de folie, et par suite, absolument priv& de raison, ,c
marie, Ic marriage qu’en apparence clle contracte n’a aucune existence l6gale; il existe ni pour
ni contre personne, et
Bernard v. Leduc17 substantiates this line of reasoning by holding that consent
given to marriage in a moment of insanity creates an absolute nullity of the
marriage.
la nulit6 peut en Etre demand&e en tout temps. 6
Dans cc cas, cc que l’on appelle marriage est une nulliti absolue, ou un acte inexistant, si
l’on peut dire, et que tout int6ress6, en tout temps, peut demander la d&claration de nullit6
de la c&lIbration du marriage.’ 8
Whereas Mignault stated that acts of a non-interdicted insane person are
of relative nullity19 , he has thus contradicted himself in his writings on
marriage, where he maintains that an act of an insane person in consenting to
1 Trudel Vol. 7 p. 70.
11[1951] B.R. 593.
Mignaulr, P. B. Traite de Droit Civil Canadien Vol. 1 p. 416.
‘6Ibid.
“[1956] Revue Ligale 522.
1b”id at P. 523.
“Mignault, P. B. Traiti de Droit Civil Canadien Vol. 5 p. 196.
No. 2]
CASE AND COMMENT
marriage is absolutely null.2 0 Trudel would agree with Mignault’s contradicting
opinion and attacks his theory of relative nullity:
En conclusion. Les directives de I’ancien droit et de notre jurisprudence sont opposces ‘
l’opinion de Mignault. Nous prf~rons voir une nulliti radicale, une absence de contrat dans la
convention que voudrait fairc une personne privE de raison. Les principes fondamentaux du
contrat y conduisent. L’absence r~elle dc consentement empache la formation du contrat.
Cette absence est indiscutable quand I’homme n’a pas l’exercice de ces facult6s inrellectuelIcs
au moment du contrat.2 1
To evaluate the conflicting opinions put forward by the authors and the
jurisprudence, it is necessary to ascertain the essential criterion which consti-
tutes the basis of the nullity of acts of insane persons. The cause of this nullity
will influence its nature; the end to which the legislator aims in the creation
of an incapacity will be the greatest factor in determining the type of nullity
according to its effect on individual welfare or public order. These legislative
ends determine the character of the nullity.
Mignault maintains that acts of insane persons who are not interdicted are
relatively null. He arrives at this conclusion by simply extending the relative
nullity which is afforded to the interdicted insane to apply, by the same token,
to acts of those whose mental incapability has not been judicially declared.
It is respectfully submitted that this extension is erroneous, and that Mignault
has failed to make a distinction between the juridical bases of nullity in each
of these situations. The legislative aim, which is a determining force on the
character of the nullity, is of a different nature in each case. Mignault has
correctly stated that the nullity which attaches to interdiction is a relative one.
This is declared in art. 987 C.C.: “Parties capable of contracting cannot set up
the incapacity of the minors or of the interdicted persons with whom they have
contracted.”
Interdiction, established solely in favour of the interdicted, is
thus a relative incapacity which may be invoked by him or his legal representa-
tive in order to annul a juridical act. The legislative end for which this relative
nullity is created is the protection of the individual and therefore only he is
able to avail himself of its benefit. However Mignault has founded his statement
of the relative nullity of acts of the non-interdicted insane on the same basis
upon which interdiction rests, namely the legislative desire to protect the
individual. It is respectfully suggested that this is not so. The juridical basis
upon which the nullity of an act of an insane rests is not individual protection,
but the lack of a valid consent which according to art. 984 C.C. is an essential
element of contract. Due to insanity at the time of contract, there is no
expression of “volontE 6claire”. The legislative aim is one of social policy
as it is a matter of public order that a ‘consent legally given’ be essential to a
contract recognized in law. An act of an insane person lacking this essential
element of contract due to his mental incapacity is non-existent in law and thus
absolutely null. Pouliot J. in Michalson v. Glassford22 states:
20lbid Vol. 1, 416.
2 Trudel Vol. 7 p. 75.
2222 R. de J. 485.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 7
L’xistence bien constat6ce de l’ali6nation mentalc au moment de l’exfcution d’un contrat,
alors mfme qu’elle ne serait pas rendue publique par une interdiction judiciaire, rend la partie
contractante incapable de contracter, par consequent le contrat inexistant.2 3
The French author, Henri Mazeaud, writing of the character of the nullity
attached to acts of ‘alifnfs qui ne sont ni interdits ni internfs’ does not recognize
this absolute ‘inexistence.’
L’acte auquel le consentement fair dffaut est nul. Certains aureurs pr6rendent mfme que
cet acte est plus que nul, qu’il est inexistant. II ne semble pas, sur on plan plus ginfral, que la
thorie de l’inexistence m6rite d’tre rerenue dans Ic domaine des incapacitis, dlle ne pr6senterait
que des inconv~nients, et serait contraire i la volont6 des rfdacteurs du Code civil.
En cffet, lorsqu’un individu privi de raison a accompli, au moins en apparence, un acre
juridique, lui seul mirite protection; l’acte doit donc ire frapp6 d’une nullit6 seulement relative.
Admettre- l’inexistence serait permnetre au tiers qui a contractE d’6carter un acre favorable A
l’intr& de l’ali&6n; la sanction ne jouerair donc plus comme une mesure de protection de l’alifn.
Le Igislateur a d’ailleurs prcis6 la sanction dont il frappe les acres passes par les alifnfs
Il serair alors illogique de sanctionner de fagon
r l’objet d’aucunc mesure de
interdits; cette sanction est la nullit6 relative.
diffirente et plus complte ‘acte accompli par un alinE qui n’a
protection.1
It appears, therefore, that Justice Hyde’s remarks in the McEwen Case “-
stating that contracts entered into by the non-interdicted insane are considered
by the French civil law as absolute nullities, are opposed to the modern French
doctrine expressed by Mazeaud. This author, like Mignault, considering the
cause of this nullity to be founded upon the concept of individual protection,
logically concludes that the character of the nullity is a relative one for only
the person whom the law wishes to protect should be afforded the benefit.
The protection which the law creates for the individual suffering from
insanity is interdiction. The Quebec civil law neither states nor implies that
it wishes to protect those insane persons who have not taken advantage of
this legal safeguard. The authors who uphold the theory of relative nullity
have applied the concept of protection to a class of persons, the non-interdicted
insane, which has avoided the legal protection available to it through inter-
diction. If this theory is accepted, the legislative aim to protect insane persons
by interdicting them is defeated.
Mazeaud himself writes:
Les alienes qui ne b
ficient d’aucune mesure de protection sont malheureusement trop
nombreux. Les families rpugnent souvent i rendre publique la dfficience mentale d’un de
leurs membres; dies prfarenrt conserver celui-ci, sans faire provoquer ni son interdiction, ni son
internement. Ricn ne distinguant extfrieuremenrt ces alienfs des majeurs ordinaires, aucune
protection ne peut tre organise.2 6
This statement recognizes the number of insane persons who lack legal
protection due to a family pride which hesitates to declare one of its members
insane, and the fact that there are no indications which distinguish these non-
interdicted persons from those juridically capable, with the result that con-
tracting parties lack means of knowing that they are dealing with an insane.
Interdiction is the solution in both these situations; it offers protection to the
21Ibjd at p. 490.
2’Mazeaud. Lefons de Droit Civil 2nd Ed. p. 1320.
25[1955] B.R. 785 at p. 799.
2’Maztaud, Lefons de Dr’it Civil. Vol. I 2nd Ed. p. 1320.
No. 2]
CASE AND COMMENT
insane and publicity to contracting parties. However, in attaching a relative
nullity, the protection afforded by interdiction, to acts of the non-interdicted
insane, Mazeaud casts this solution aside and renders interdiction obsolete.
There is no reason in claiming the ‘social stigma’ of interdiction if onemay
It is
avail oneself of the same protection without becoming interdicted.
respectfully submitted that the authors, in erroneously applying a relative
nullity to the acts of insane persons, short-circuit the legislative aim to protect
these persons through interdiction. Rather, an act of an insane person lacking
an essential element of contract due to his mental incapacity is non-existent in
law and thus absolutely null. This nullity must rest not on the basis of protec-
tion, but upon the absence of a valid consent without which there exists no
contract. It may be claimed by any interested party and is not confined, as is
a relative nullity, to the insane himself.
The plaintiff appealed from the judgement of the Court of Queen’s Bench
in the McEwen v. Jenkins and Bradley case on the grounds that this court dismissed
her appeal and maintained the appeal of the defendant Jenkins in holding the
power of attorney valid. The Supreme Court maintained the plaintiff’s action
and held the will and the power of attorney to be null and void for lack of
mental capacity. Although the Supreme Court, in reversing the question of
fact, contradicts the judgement of the Appeal Court which held the power of
attorney valid, it has upheld the conclusions of the lower courts in accepting
the theory of absolute nullity for it has recognized the right of any interested
person, as was the plaintiff McEwen in this case, to bring an action in nullity
against an act of an insane person. The Court held:
The plaintiff being an heir abintestate if the will was void had sufficient interest to attack
the power of attorney so as to increase the value of the estate.27
The Supreme Court has thus quashed the theory of relative nullity and in
maintaining that an absolute nullity attaches to acts of insane persons has
permitted interested parties other than the insane or his legal representatives
to request the courts to declare the inexistence of such acts.
Parce qu’il est interdir, le fou pourra demander, selon 334 C.C. la revision de l’acte pose.
Mais lui seul pourra all~guer cc moyen, car l’interdiction a pour but sa protection. Les autres
interess~s pourront aussi demander que le contrat soit declare nul, non parce qu’iI y a inter-
diction, mais bien parce qu’il n’y a pas eu possibiliti d’expression d’une volontE 6clair&e.
L’interdit invoque Ics dispositions du Code portant sur Ic chapitre des incapacitis. Le co-
contractant recourt 1 l’art. 984 dans ic chapitre des obligations. Ie premier recours ne dtruit
pas I’autre, nile second le premier. Nous sommes dans deux ordres diffrents.28
Consequently the courts have now recognized two parallel actions, based
on distinctly separate juridical foundations, to annul the acts of insane persons.
These actions rest upon the relative nullity of legal interdiction established in
favour of the incapable who alone is able to allege this protection, and secondly,
upon the absolute nullity resulting from lack of consent, an essential element
of contract, which may be invoked by any interested party.
27(1958] S.C.R. 719 at 720.
25Cardinal J. La Revue du Notariat. Vol. 60 p. 153.
