Junkin et al. v. Bedard et al.

Where every fact necessary for deceit was pleaded and proved, a variance as to whether the misrepresentation was pleaded as oral but proven in writing was immaterial because it caused no prejudice to the defence; therefore the appeal must be dismissed and damages referred for assessment.

Citation: [1958] SCR 56
Parties: Defendant Appellant: Douglas Junkin; Defendant Appellant: Yetta Junkin; Plaintiff Respondent: John H. Bedard; Plaintiff Respondent: Amelia Bedard
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 19 December 1957
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal (deceit/damages) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome: Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics: Fraud, Deceit, Misrepresentation, Pleading, Damages
Source Language: English

Tort Civil Procedure Fraud Deceit Misrepresentation Pleading Damages

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

Douglas Junkin

Defendant Appellant

Yetta Junkin

Defendant Appellant

John H. Bedard

Plaintiff Respondent

Amelia Bedard

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (deceit/damages) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

1 Whether a variance between the pleading (oral misrepresentation) and the proof (written misrepresentation) is fatal to an action for deceit
2 Whether misrepresentations made by an agent in writing can be relied upon where the pleading alleges oral representations
3 Whether the plaintiffs proved damage resulting from the misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs
Judgment to be entered in favour of the respondents for damages to be assessed by the Master