Back
1917 Supreme(SC) 2
Privy Council
Sir Arthur Channel, Lord Parker of Waddington , Lord Dunedin, Lord Buckmaster, Justice Viscount Haldane, JJ.
Montreal Street Railway Company -Appellant
Versus
Normandin -Resopndent
On Appeal from the Superior Court of Quebec
Decided On : 23-01-1917
Duff, R. Finlay , Rinfret, J. Simon
Statutory provisions for the revision of jury lists are directory, not imperative. Procedural irregularities in their preparation do not render a trial null or a verdict void unless actual prejudice, such as jury packing or the inclusion of unqualified jurors, is proven.
Headnote:(A) Revised Statutes - Arts. 3409, 3411, 3414, 3416, 3418, 3421, 3423, 3426, 3427, 3428, 3429 and 3462; Code of Civil Procedure - Art. 430 - Constitution of jury lists - Non-observance of statutory provisions for annual revision of jury lists - Whether such provisions are directory or imperative - Where provisions relate to the performance of a public duty and holding acts null would work serious general inconvenience or injustice and not promote the main object of the Legislature, such provisions are held to be directory - Neglect of such duties does not affect the validity of the acts done unless prejudice is proved.
(B) Jury - Challenge to array - Where names are taken in proper rotation from an existing list and jurors are qualified, the failure to revise the list does not render the trial coram non judice or the verdict null and void in the absence of proof of prejudice.
(C) Juror - Disqualification - Relationship by affinity or interest - A juror being the brother of a testamentary guardian of a party does not constitute relationship or affinity that would disqualify the juror.
Facts of the case:
A plaintiff recovered damages for personal injuries in a tramcar collision. The defendant sought to set aside the judgment on the grounds that the jury was not duly constituted due to the failure of the sheriff to revise jury lists, that a juror was related to the plaintiff, and that improper communications occurred during the trial. No challenge to the array or individual jurors was made during the trial.
Findings of Court:
The failure to revise jury lists was a neglect of public duty that did not result in a packed jury or the selection of unqualified persons. No prejudice was shown to have been suffered. The alleged relationship of the juror did not amount to affinity or legal disqualification, and the allegations of communication were not proved.
Issues: Whether the failure to observe statutory provisions for the revision of jury lists rendered the trial a nullity and whether the alleged juror bias and communications warranted setting aside the verdict.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutory provisions for the preparation of jury lists are directory rather than imperative when their strict enforcement would cause significant public inconvenience without furthering the legislative intent of preventing jury packing and distributing the burden of service. In the absence of evidence of prejudice or a packed jury, procedural irregularities in list revision do not invalidate the verdict.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
jury
- constitution of jury
- juror qualification
- jury misconduct
-
civil procedure
- setting aside judgment
- requete civile
-
jury
-
statutory interpretation
- directory and imperative provisions
-
tort
- personal injury
Sir Arther Channell:-
The respondent in this case was plaintiff in an action against the appellant company in the Superior Court of Quebec to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him when travelling in a tramcar of the appellants' by a collision with another tramcar of the same company. The action was tried before a special jury, who gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 12,000 dollars on 12th December, 1912 and judgment was given for the plaintiff for that amount. The appellants on 10th January 1913, took proceedings to have the judgment set aside on the ground that the jury had not been duly constituted and was without jurisdiction, and also that one of the jurors was relative to and was connected by affinity with the plaintiff and was not indifferent between the parties and also that in the course of the trial communications in reference to the case passed between the plaintiff his relatives and those who were conducting his case and that juror and other jurors. At the trial there had been no challenge either to the array or to any individual juror.
These proceedings ultimately failed, and by a judgment of the Superior Court, sitting as Court of review in Montreal, the judgment in favour of the plaintiff was upheld. From the judgment of the Court of Review this appeal is brought. The questions argued before the Board were whether, on the grounds alleged or either of them, the judgment at the trial ought to have been set aside, and whether the procedure taken for setting it aside was correct in form. There are also proceedings taken to set aside the verdict and judgment on the ground that the damages were excessive ; but these are standing over pending the decision of this appeal. What the appellants did on 10th, January 1913, was to present a petition in revocation of judgment known in Quebec as a requete civile which came on to be heard before Beaudin J. on 27th January who held without going into the evidence, that requete civile was not the proper way to raise the question. An appeal from this decision was taken to the Court of King's Bench (Appeal Side) which Court, by a majority, on 30th October 1913, allowed the appeal, ordered the reception of the petition and remitted the record to the Superior Court for proof and hearing of the issues contained in the petition. This proof and hearing took place on 21st November 1914, when the judge (Monet J.) heard the evidence and dismissed the petition on the merits. He also disallowed a demurrer by the respondent to the petition, following, in so doing, the judgment of the King's Bench (Appeal side). The appellants appealed to the Court of Review from the decision of Monet, J. disallowing his requete civile, but the respondent did not appeal from the disallowance of his demurrer. The Court of Review affirmed the judgment of Monet, J. but a majority of the judges were of opinion that the proceedings were wrong in form and should have been dismissed on that ground as well as on the merits. The most important question on the appeal to this Board is as to the effect of serious irregularities in the preliminary proceedings for constituting the jury panel. On this point Monet J. found that irregularities or breaches of the provisions of law had occurred but that the appellants could not avail themselves of them because they had not proved any prejudice to have been suffered by them in consequence.
Very elaborate and minute enactments are contained in the Revised Statutes of Quebec (Arts. 3409, 3411, 3414, 3416, 3418, 3421, 3423, 3426, 3427, 3428, 3429 and 3462) for the constitution of a revising board to revise annually the jury lists, there being one list of grand and another of petit juries.
The municipalities are directed to give notice to the sheriff of new names of qualified persons and of the deaths, removals or exemptions of those on the old lists. The board of which the sheriff is a member and apparently president, sit in private to make their revision, but public n
