T-1172-73
The Queen (Plaintiff)
v.
Brink's Canada Limited (Defendant)
Trial Division, Addy J.—Quebec, October 21;
Ottawa, November 18, 1976.
Crown—Contract—Meaning of the word "package"—
Whether `package" includes sealed envelopes—Post Office
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-14—Post Office Regulations, s.
3A(5) (d).
ACTION.
COUNSEL:
Jacques Ouellet for plaintiff.
Richard Nadeau for defendant.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
plaintiff.
Allaire, L'Heureux, Gratton & Blain, Mont-
real, for defendant.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
ADDY J.: In the case at bar the sole question to
be determined by the Court is whether the word
"package" in a contract entered into between the
parties is or is not to be taken to include certain
sealed envelopes containing bank notes.
The contract is in English and the portion out of
which the dispute arises reads as follows:
... but the Contractor agrees to be liable for the safety of any
sum of money, cheques and/or securities received into his
possession at any time up to the amount of $200.00 per package
carried.
After considering the various definitions of the
word "package", I am of the view that, as it is
commonly used and generally understood, the
word clearly includes a package of money in an
envelope, even where the envelope is only sealed
with glue. To constitute a package, the outside
envelope does not have to be made of linen, to be
linen-lined or composed of any other cloth, nor
does it have to be tied with string or stitched.
There is nothing in the Post Office Act', the
regulations established pursuant to section 5 of
that Act or, more specifically, in section 3A of the
Regulations 2 which might be taken to change the
normal meaning of the word. On the contrary,
paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of this section
clearly seems to indicate that an item may be a
package without being tied, since the section stipu
lates that before a package containing bank notes
can be posted it must be tied, after being wrapped
or stitched, and then sealed at the points of clos
ing. It is therefore clear that the regulation itself
recognizes that the word "package" can include an
envelope which is not tied or stitched in this way.
A package inside another one remains neverthe
less a package. The fact that these envelopes were
transported in linen bags tied with string and
sealed, and that these bags were in turn placed
inside another sealed mailbag, does not modify
their intrinsic character of being themselves pack
ages. Otherwise, the word "package" would refer
solely to the mailbag itself. Since the plaintiff hires
the services of the defendant solely to transport
money, documents or packages of great value and
not ordinary mail, it would be ludicrous to con
clude that the parties intended to limit the liability
of the defendant to $200 per mailbag.
In accordance with paragraph 8 of the docu
ment entitled "Consent", filed at the hearing as
Exhibit P-1, the plaintiff shall therefore be entitled
to judgment against the defendant for the sum of
$35,099.35. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to
costs.
' R.S.C. 1970, c. P-14.
2 See section 1 of SOR/64-330.
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.