Unreported Judgments
CONTEMPT
Robert Rumilly v. La Compagnie de Publication de la Presse Limi-
t~e and Normand Hudon, S.C.M. 562,306, February 28, 1964, Mr.
Justice Harry Batshaw.
Statement made by Defendant
Contempt of Court – Motion for rule nisi –
on television – Authorities referred to.
Plaintiff made a motion for contempt of court and rule nisi as
a result of a statement made by Defendant Hudon on television. The
Plaintiff had instituted action against Defendants alleging de-
famation as a result of a caricature executed by Defendant Hudon
and published in La Presse. The proceedings were in a state of
abeyance pending an examination before plea. During the course of
the T.V. interview, Hudon was asked whether his cartoons had ever
involved him in law suits and he replied: “I y a Rumilly (the Plain-
tiff) ; il s’est d~gonfl6 comme d’habitude. Il a abandonn6 la poursuite
sur le conseil de ses avocats…”
It was stated that the type of contempt here was that of abusing
parties who are concerned in cases before the courts or in influencing
or prejudicing public opinion against them before the case is heard.
The court had to ascertain whether the statement was made with
the intention of influencing the result of the trial or whether it might
have that effect, whether so intended or not. Although the state-
ments made were clearly prejudicial to Plaintiff’s case, the fact that
the plea had not been filed and the case was unlikely to be heard for
two years was a mitigating factor in favour of the Defendant. There-
fore, the motion was granted but for costs only.
PRIVILEGES
Be-Vi Investment Corp. V. Gravell Brick & Stone Co. (Que.) Ltd.
et al., S.C.M. 10,239, ex parte, May 14, 1965, Mr. Justice Maurice
Archambault.
Privilege –
Supplier of materials – Petition to radiate –
805 and 2013 (e)
C.P., and numerous authorities.
A supplier of materials entered into a contract with a general
contractor to supply brick on a construction project. It was proved
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 13
that the owner approached the supplier, chose the bricks and discussed
the price with him.
Held: This was insufficient and the petition to cancel the regis-
tration of privilege was maintained. Article 2013 (e) C.P. requires a
written notice in these cases, and here there was none.
Held also, that this matter could be decided by petition (motion)
pursuant to Article 805 C.P. Although the jurisprudence seems to be
somewhat confused on this point, the learned judge opts for the view
that the Superior Court, on motion, can decide these issues. A judge
of the Superior Court does not lose jurisdiction to decide these cases
on motion simply because a motion is contested.
PRIVILEGES
Megiddo Realty Corp. v. Cameo Wood Products Limited, et al.
S.C.M. 9481, ex parte, May 8, 1964, Mr. Justice Remand Legault.
Privilege – Petition for cancellation – Registration – Whether premature
805 C.P.
A supplier’s privilege was registered against Petitioner’s property.
Petitioner argued that as a term of 30 or 90 days had been granted
for payment of the account and that the privilege was registered
prematurely.
Held: Petition dismissed. The privilege was validly registered. The
privilege existed from the time the materials in question were supplied.
The only drawback that could exist would be that if the privilege
were registered within 30 days of delivery and the debtor would offer
payment, the creditor would be obliged to assume the costs of the
registration of the privilege and its cancellation.
PRIVILEGES
Max Goldman v. A. Groleau Lt~e, et al., S.C.M. 8926 ex parte,
December 10, 1963, Mr. Justice G.B. Puddicombe.
Privilege – Petition for cancellation – Action taken – Whether lis pendens
Whether petition can be taken after action instituted –
805 C.P.
A sub-contractor registered privileges against certain lots and
subsequently instituted action. Petitioner then made a motion to
radiate pursuant to 805 C.P. Respondent argued lis pendens.
Held: The exception by way of lis pendens was dismissed. The
parties were not identical in the two proceedings, although both the
No. 3]
UNREPORTED JUDGMENT
Petitioner and Respondent appear respectively as the Plaintiff and
the mis-en-cause in the action. Nevertheless, as an action had already
been instituted, the d~lib~r6 on the petition was discharged as it is
inconceivable that judgment could be rendered in the action maintain-
ing the right of privilege, and on the other hand, the petition in
cancellation could be granted.
PRIVILEGES
Frank Feldman v. CanadaFlooring Co. Limibed et al., S.C.M. 6280
ex parte, December 10, 1963, Mr. Justice C.A. Sylvestre.
Privilege: Petition fo’r Cancellation – Action taken – Whether lis pendens
Whether petition can be taken after action instituted –
A supplier registered a privilege against certain properties and
subsequently instituted action. Petitioner then made a motion to
radiate pursuant to 805 C.P. Respondent argued lis pendens.
805 C.P.
Held: The exception of lis pendens was maintained. The court
referred to jurisprudence which has held that the requirements of
lis pendens are the same as res judicata.
Moreover, the petition was premature and could not be made until
the rights of the parties had been decided in the action.
