Paul v. Gray et al.

Paul v. Gray et al.

Because the plaintiffs failed to comply with contractual requirements and instructions, the railway company was entitled under the contract to terminate and engage another contractor; there was no evidence of conspiracy and no basis for appellate interference with the trial judge's factual findings, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
[1972] SCR 118
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Frank Paul; Plaintiff Appellant: Charlotte Paul; Defendant Respondent: Ralph Leonard Gray; Defendant Respondent: George H. Workman; Defendant Respondent: Canadian National Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 1971
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Termination of Contract, Contract Performance, Appellate Review of Findings of Fact, Conspiracy Claim
Source Language
English
Contract Breach of Contract Termination of Contract Contract Performance Appellate Review of Findings of Fact Conspiracy Claim

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Paul

Plaintiff Appellant

Charlotte Paul

Plaintiff Appellant

Ralph Leonard Gray

Defendant Respondent

George H. Workman

Defendant Respondent

Canadian National Railway Company

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractor failed to comply with contractual requirements and instructions
  2. 2 Whether the railway company was entitled to terminate the contract and employ another contractor to complete the work
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

Because the plaintiffs failed to comply with contractual requirements and instructions, the railway company was entitled under the contract to terminate and engage another contractor; there was no evidence of conspiracy and no basis for appellate interference with the trial judge's factual findings, therefore the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs