Parna v. G. & S. Properties Ltd.

Parna v. G. & S. Properties Ltd.

The plaintiffs failed to prove the essential elements of deceit: there was no evidence that the representations were false with knowledge or recklessly made nor that the appellants were induced to act by them; given appellants' knowledge that the figures were estimates and their acceptance of the statutory declaration, liability for deceit was not established and the action must be dismissed.

Citation
[1971] SCR 306
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: August Parna; Plaintiff/appellant: Reta Parna; Defendant/respondent: G. & S. Properties Limited; Defendant/respondent: Frank Albert; Defendant/respondent: William Harvie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 October 1970
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Appeal; Civil Action for Deceit (fraudulent Misrepresentation) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on Liability and Measure of Damages
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs to respondents.
Legal Topics
Deceit, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Inducement, Damages, Measure of Damages
Source Language
English
Tort Contract Civil Procedure Deceit Fraud Misrepresentation Inducement Damages +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

August Parna

Plaintiff/appellant

Reta Parna

Plaintiff/appellant

G. & S. Properties Limited

Defendant/respondent

Frank Albert

Defendant/respondent

William Harvie

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Appeal; Civil Action for Deceit (fraudulent Misrepresentation) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on Liability and Measure of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants proved deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether representations (Schedule A/statutory declaration) were false and made knowingly or recklessly
  3. 3 Whether appellants were induced to act by the representations

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to prove the essential elements of deceit: there was no evidence that the representations were false with knowledge or recklessly made nor that the appellants were induced to act by them; given appellants' knowledge that the figures were estimates and their acceptance of the statutory declaration, liability for deceit was not established and the action must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs to respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal allowed