|
|
This conclusion was expressed after a review of authorities including references to Poole & Thompson Ltd. v. McNally[13] and McMillan v. Murray[14]. These two cases, it must be noted, dealt with similar onus of proof sections in Prince Edward Island and in Alberta prior to the insertion of the words “entirely or solely” and prior to the enactment of The Contributory Negligence Act in those provinces. In the first case, it was said that without those words, contributory negligence of the plaintiff might not avail as a defence to the motorist because it would not show that the injury did not arise through his negligence. This was the view that was rejected in the passage from McMillan v. Murray which I have quoted earlier. It was there held that, even without the words “entirely or solely”, proof of contributory negligence was as complete a defence against the statutory presumption of negligence as against proven negligence at common law. However, in the interval between the two judgments (November 20, 1934, and November 22, 1935), the Legislature of Alberta had added the words “entirely or solely” by chap. 82 of the Statutes of 1935, and the Legislature of Saskatchewan had similarly inserted them in s. 86 of the Vehicles Act, 1935 (Sask.), c. 68, assented to February 21, 1935. Later on, contributory negligence ceased to be a complete defence in the two provinces by the enactment of The Contributory Negligence Act, in Alberta by chap. 18 of the Statutes of 1937, in Saskatchewan by chap. 23 of the Statutes of 1944. Therefore, when Bearing v. Hébert came before this Court in 1957, the Alberta onus of proof section was considered in the context of that enactment. No reference was then made to McMillan v. Murray based as it was on the common law rule as to the effect of contributory negligence. It was mentioned in Feener v.
|
