VOL. XVII.] .EXCHEQUER COURT REPORT. 137. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF RIGHT OF 1918 March 11. FRANCOIS FRADETTE, SUPPLIANT, ' AND HIS MAJESTY THE KING, RESPONDENT. Limitation of actions—Négligence—Action against Dominion Crown— Interruption of prescription. . By virtue of sec. 33 of the Exchequer Court Act (R.S.C. 1906, c. 140) the provincial laws relating 'to prescription and limitation of actions apply. to an Action for personal injuries against the Crown in right of the Dominion. Mere "negotiation" does not operate as an interruption of the prescription. PETITION OF. RIGHT to recover damâges for personal injuries. Tried before the Honourable Mr'. Justice Audette, at Quebec, February 16, 1918. W.Amyot, for suppliant. E. Belleau, K.C., for' respondent. • AUDETTE, J. (March 11, 1918) delivered judgment. The, suppliant, who is an emRloyee of the .Department of Marine, brought his petition of right to re-.
138 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVII. 1918 cover damages in the sum of $2000, as arising out FRMD v E . T TE of an accident of which he was the victim while TAE KING. working, at Quebec, as boiler-maker on board the !Lessons for Judgment. Steamer "Princess," a steamer Owned by the Do- minion Government. He claims that in course of this work a piece of steel flew from his tool, lodged in his left eye, and as a result he absolutely lost the use of the eye. The accident happened on the-30th January, 1914. . The petition of right is dated as of the 12th October, 1916, and the fiat was granted on the 7th November, 1916. Sec. 33 of The Exchequer Court Act enacts that, "The laws relating to prescription and the limita- tion of actions in force in any province between "subject and subject shall, subject to the provisions "of any Act of the Parliament of Canada, apply to "any proceeding against the Crown in respect of "any cause of action arising in such province." Moreover, under Art. 2211 of the Civil Code of the Province of Quebec, the Crown may avail itself of prescription, and the manner in which the subject may interrupt such prescription is by means of a petition of right,—apart from the cases in which the law gives another remedy. Under Art. 2262 of the Civil Code the right of action for bodily injuries is prescribed by one year, and Art. 2267 thereof enacts that in such case the debt is absolutely extinguished, and that no action can be maintained after the delay for prescription has expired. Counsel for the suppliant contends, however, that the correspondence produced of record amounts
VOL. XVII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS.. 139, to. negotiations which would interrupt _ 'pre-. 1918 _._••__. scription. In that contention ,I ain unable to ac- FRADETTE TIM KIN. gniesce. Reasons for Judgment.. The term "negotiation," as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, is "the deliberation, discussion or "conference upon the terms of a proposed agree- ment; the act of setting' or arranging the terms "and conditions of a bargain, sale, or other business "transaction." A demand of payment has been made and the Crown, when informed of the nature of the claim, declines to acknowledge any liability. The claimant cannot bind the other side by a mere demand for payment. `It is, at most, a unilateral demand, without mutuality of purpose to negotiate, and it, is in its very nature insufficient to interrupt prescription. It is unnecessary to say any more upon this question; the matter is to my mind too clear. I therefore • find that the injury complained of in this case having been received more than a year before the lodging of the petition of right with the Secretary of State, the right of action is absolutely prescribed and extinguished under the provisions of Articles 2262 and 2267 C. C. See, also The Queen v. Martin (1) • •I n the view I take of the case it becomes unnecessary to consider both' the question of "negligence" and the question of "public work," and while. the accident is most unfortunate, it is, however, to some extent comforting, under the circumstances, to know the suppliant has been continued in his work and (1) . 20 Can. S.C.R. 240.
140 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XVII. 1918 that he has even received an increase in his wages. FEwnE . T T$ V The action is dismissed and the suppliant is de- Tai Kixc. dared not entitled to the relief sought by his peti- Reaaone for Judgment. tion of right. Action dismissed. Solicitors for suppliant: Drouin & Amyot. Solicitors for respondent: Belleau, Baillargeon & Belleau.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.