Bourk v. Canada Products Ltd.

Bourk v. Canada Products Ltd.

Although the Court did not find the lower courts' construction of the pleading necessarily erroneous or the trial judge's exercise of discretion plainly wrong, it held the trial was unsatisfactory and that justice required a new trial; accordingly a new trial was ordered and costs were apportioned with defendant bearing costs up to the request for amendment and subsequent costs placed at the discretion of the new trial judge.

Citation
[1928] SCR 573
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Robert H. Bourk; Plaintiff/respondent: Canada Products Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 1928
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; New Trial Ordered
Outcome
New trial ordered
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Pleadings, Amendment of Pleadings, New Trial, Responsibility for Termination of Contract, Counterclaim, Damages, Costs Allocation
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Breach of Contract Pleadings Amendment of Pleadings New Trial +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert H. Bourk

Defendant/appellant

Canada Products Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who was responsible for termination of the logging contract
  2. 2 Whether the defendant could rely on events prior to November 14, 1924 under his counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to allow amendment of pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court did not find the lower courts' construction of the pleading necessarily erroneous or the trial judge's exercise of discretion plainly wrong, it held the trial was unsatisfactory and that justice required a new trial; accordingly a new trial was ordered and costs were apportioned with defendant bearing costs up to the request for amendment and subsequent costs placed at the discretion of the new trial judge.

Court Disposition

New trial ordered

Orders

  • New trial ordered
  • Defendant to pay costs up to the time amendment was requested (to be paid forthwith)