Glossary entry (derived from question below)
French term or phrase:
Appelé > en cause ou en garantie
English translation:
Can: Impleaded Party
Added to glossary by
Adrian MM.
Jul 5, 2021 03:03
2 yrs ago
46 viewers *
French term
Appelé
French to English
Law/Patents
Law (general)
Small claims court judgment
The term appears in the following context:
XXXX,
Demandeur et défendeur reconventionnel
c.
YYYY
Défenderesse et demanderesse reconventionnelle
et
TTTT,
Appelé
In the body of the judgment, it's clear that this person was brought in by the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim to support her claim.
I'd appreciate any help with the right term as used in Quebec. TIA
XXXX,
Demandeur et défendeur reconventionnel
c.
YYYY
Défenderesse et demanderesse reconventionnelle
et
TTTT,
Appelé
In the body of the judgment, it's clear that this person was brought in by the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim to support her claim.
I'd appreciate any help with the right term as used in Quebec. TIA
Proposed translations
(English)
| 3 | Third-party defendant; co-defendant > Can: Party impleaded |
Adrian MM.
|
| 4 | Involuntary Intervenor |
Eliza Hall
|
Change log
Jul 8, 2021 19:35: Adrian MM. Created KOG entry
Proposed translations
5 hrs
Adrian MM.
Austria
Austria
Native in English
Specializes in field
Austria
Retd.T&I, Barrister & Austro-Advokat
Native in: English (Variants: Scottish, British) 
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish, French to English, and 5 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
359
French term (edited):
Appelé > en garantie
Selected
Third-party defendant; co-defendant > Can: Party impleaded
Pls. refer in the web ref. to Peter F's joined as a third party.
I suspect that Appelé is short for 'en garantie'. Again, if - in England + Wales - *joined in* by the defendant, then called a third-party defendant vs. co-defendant if added by the plaintiff aka claimant.
The Canadian term of impleader equates with third-party proceedings elsewhere, is a rare process used in E+W criminal litigation and is traditionally - by both lawyers and lay clients - confusable with an interpleader where a stakeholder holds property fought over by two litigants.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2021-07-05 08:49:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
BTW, the garantie in ENG is an indemnity rather than a commercial-type product warranty. In E+W, a defendant will join in a third party for an *indemnity and a contribution*. By contrast, co-defendants - added by a claimant alias plaintiff - can bring *contribution proceedings* against each other.
I suspect that Appelé is short for 'en garantie'. Again, if - in England + Wales - *joined in* by the defendant, then called a third-party defendant vs. co-defendant if added by the plaintiff aka claimant.
The Canadian term of impleader equates with third-party proceedings elsewhere, is a rare process used in E+W criminal litigation and is traditionally - by both lawyers and lay clients - confusable with an interpleader where a stakeholder holds property fought over by two litigants.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2021-07-05 08:49:52 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
BTW, the garantie in ENG is an indemnity rather than a commercial-type product warranty. In E+W, a defendant will join in a third party for an *indemnity and a contribution*. By contrast, co-defendants - added by a claimant alias plaintiff - can bring *contribution proceedings* against each other.
Example sentence:
What is Third Party Defendant? A party who is sued by the original defendant and brought into the case on a theory of being responsible to the defendant for all or part of the claim made by the plaintiff.
Can.: The defendant can request the intervention of a third person: .. to ensure that the dispute is fully resolved by adding the third person as a co-defendant or *impleaded* party.
Note from asker:
| Thanks' Adrian. Your proposals are really helpful. I think I'll go with "impleaded party", which I just found here https://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/en/your-disputes/small-claims/who-can-sue-or-be-sued/intervention-by-a-third-person/. You're entitled to the points, sir. |
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: I think we need more context and if this is from Québec then we need to tie in with their system which may or may not necessarily use the same terms as E&W
3 hrs
|
|
Agreed, but my doubt is whether this the term is short for Appelé an cause as joined in generally or en garantie as a thrid-party defendant.
|
|
| agree |
philgoddard
: Impleader is not a specifically Canadian term, and I'm not sure it's appropriate here. But I agree with third-party defendant.
4 hrs
|
|
Impleader isn't used in English civil litigation, partly because of the mix-up with the term of interpleader.
|
|
| disagree |
Eliza Hall
: There's no indication that he's a defendant. Not in the FR original and not in the context explained by the asker. Also, why would a sibling be "appelé en garantie" in this context? Makes no sense.
6 hrs
|
|
read the question *carefully*: the party has been joined either 'en cause' or 'garantie'.
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks again."
12 hrs
Eliza Hall
United States
United States
Native in English
Specializes in field
United States
Lawyer-Translator-Certified Interpreter
Native in: English (Variants: US, Scottish, Canadian, Irish, British, UK)
Works in: French to English, English to French
Related KudoZ points
:
145
Involuntary Intervenor
I think there’s some confusion here. X is the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant (“Demandeur et défendeur reconventionnel”); Y is the defender and counterclaim plaintiff. That means X sued Y, and Y countersued X.
If either X or Y had sued T—which, by the way, in the US would be called a crossclaim, not a counterclaim (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cross-complaint)--I would think that T would also be referred to as a défendeur (in EN, a “crossclaim defendant”). But he’s not.
Since he’s referred to as having been called (appelé), and Asker says the sister added him to the suit, it sounds like she “joined” him (US term). In Quebec they call that process intervention forcée (she forced him to become an intervenor): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(droit)#Droit_civ...
But the logic behind bringing him into the suit can’t just be, as Asker said, “to help her prove she didn't steal” the item from their mother’s estate. If T had information that could help prove that, she’d just call him as a witness, not add him to the suit as a party.
The reason he has to be added as a party is that they’re siblings and all heirs to their mom’s estate. If Sibling A sues Sibling B, alleging that B stole an asset of their mother's, Sibling C has to be added to the suit—otherwise you can’t actually resolve the suit completely, because even if B wins the suit against A, sometime later C could still sue B for the same thing. To get the case completely resolved, with no possibility of future litigation between the siblings, you need all interested parties to be joined to the case.
We say "Intervenor" in the US, but unlike in Quebec, there's no such thing as an involuntary one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intervene
So I would say “Involuntary Intervenor,” which is not a term used in US law but is a good translation for three reasons:
(1) It fits with the fact that “appelé” means she added him to the suit, as opposed to him adding himself;
(2) it is consistent with what apparently happened (intervention forcée); and
(3) it alerts the reader that there’s no exact equivalent to this in US law; it’s a foreign legal procedure.
If either X or Y had sued T—which, by the way, in the US would be called a crossclaim, not a counterclaim (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cross-complaint)--I would think that T would also be referred to as a défendeur (in EN, a “crossclaim defendant”). But he’s not.
Since he’s referred to as having been called (appelé), and Asker says the sister added him to the suit, it sounds like she “joined” him (US term). In Quebec they call that process intervention forcée (she forced him to become an intervenor): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(droit)#Droit_civ...
But the logic behind bringing him into the suit can’t just be, as Asker said, “to help her prove she didn't steal” the item from their mother’s estate. If T had information that could help prove that, she’d just call him as a witness, not add him to the suit as a party.
The reason he has to be added as a party is that they’re siblings and all heirs to their mom’s estate. If Sibling A sues Sibling B, alleging that B stole an asset of their mother's, Sibling C has to be added to the suit—otherwise you can’t actually resolve the suit completely, because even if B wins the suit against A, sometime later C could still sue B for the same thing. To get the case completely resolved, with no possibility of future litigation between the siblings, you need all interested parties to be joined to the case.
We say "Intervenor" in the US, but unlike in Quebec, there's no such thing as an involuntary one: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intervene
So I would say “Involuntary Intervenor,” which is not a term used in US law but is a good translation for three reasons:
(1) It fits with the fact that “appelé” means she added him to the suit, as opposed to him adding himself;
(2) it is consistent with what apparently happened (intervention forcée); and
(3) it alerts the reader that there’s no exact equivalent to this in US law; it’s a foreign legal procedure.
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
AllegroTrans
: Alot of confusion and asker hasn't given us the full story, although you could be correct. However, we need the correct Canadian (not US) term since we know this is from Québec
1 hr
|
|
They use the same term in CA EN, so I learned something new today :) https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-507-2484
|
|
| disagree |
Adrian MM.
: The asker hasn't stipulated for a US-Am. term, even if you have a tactical voter on your side. // No way. Even as a questionable attempt to reword my answer, involuntary intervenor squares neither syntactically nor legalistically wiith Appelé as a passive
2 hrs
|
|
It's intervenor in Canadian English, too. So I trust you will now withdraw your "disagree"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(law)#Canadian_pr...
|
|
| agree |
writeaway
2 hrs
|
|
Merci!
|
Discussion
As for whether this brother could be a co-plaintiff, I doubt it, because it doesn't say anything to that effect in the case caption. It could say "Appelé et demandeur" or something like that, but it doesn't.
- All 3 jurisdictions discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(law)
- Canada: https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-507-2484
- UK: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/judicial-review-...
As those explanations show, unlike Quebec, none of these jurisdictions have "intervention forcée" (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervention_(droit)#Droit_civ... In other words, in US/UK/CA common law, you as a litigating party cannot make someone else an intervenor. Intervention can only happen voluntarily, when a third party files a motion to intervene. Hence the need for an additional word in the translation ("Involuntary Intervenor," my suggestion).