Palmer et al. v. The Queen

Palmer et al. v. The Queen

No valid lease bound the Crown because the required Governor in Council authorization was never obtained; the appellants occupied the land only by tolerance and were tenants at will who acted in bad faith by refusing to vacate; the destruction of chattels by an independent contractor did not establish Crown liability under the Exchequer Court Act, and therefore the petition of right fails.

Citation
[1959] SCR 401
Parties
Appellants / Petitioners: Morris Robert Palmer and Nathan Palmer carrying on business as Hull Pipe and Machinery Company; Respondent / Defendant: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 1959
Procedural Posture
Petition of Right (appeal to Supreme Court of Canada) / On Appeal From the Exchequer Court of Canada; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; petition of right dismissed
Legal Topics
Crown Liability, Expropriation, Tenancy at Will, Breach of Covenant of Peaceful Enjoyment, Governor in Council Authorization for Crown Contracts, Independent Contractor Liability, Interpretation of Exchequer Court Act, Public Works Act S.18
Source Language
English
Public Law Administrative Law Property Law Contract Law Tort Law Crown Liability Expropriation Tenancy at Will +5 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morris Robert Palmer and Nathan Palmer carrying on business as Hull Pipe and Machinery Company

Appellants / Petitioners

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Petition of Right (appeal to Supreme Court of Canada) / On Appeal From the Exchequer Court of Canada; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment of rent created a monthly tenancy enforceable against the Crown
  2. 2 Whether a valid lease was concluded binding the Crown without Governor in Council authorization
  3. 3 Whether the Crown is liable for destruction of chattels carried out by an independent contractor on direction of a Crown officer

Ratio Decidendi

No valid lease bound the Crown because the required Governor in Council authorization was never obtained; the appellants occupied the land only by tolerance and were tenants at will who acted in bad faith by refusing to vacate; the destruction of chattels by an independent contractor did not establish Crown liability under the Exchequer Court Act, and therefore the petition of right fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; petition of right dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Dismissal of petition of right