Temple v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia

Temple v. Attorney General of Nova Scotia

The court held that 'nearest recurring anniversary of the date of the lease' means the next ensuing anniversary measured from the date of the lease instrument (June 10, 1889), so rent for 1894 was not due on May 22, 1894 and the tender on June 9, 1894 was in time; further, the 1889 amending Act did not authorize summary forfeiture without the formalities required by the original statute for leases that existed when the Act passed and subsequently entered into rental agreements, therefore the declared forfeiture and subsequent licence were void.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 355
Parties
Appellants: William A. Temple and Others; Respondents: The Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Robert D. Evans
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1897
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia / Decision on Appeal Judgment Affirmed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia affirmed.
Legal Topics
Mining Lease, Rental in Lieu of Work, Forfeiture, Construction of Statute, Tender of Rent, Retroactive Application of Statute
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Administrative Law Property Law Statutory Interpretation Mining Lease Rental in Lieu of Work Forfeiture Construction of Statute +2 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William A. Temple and Others

Appellants

The Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Robert D. Evans

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia / Decision on Appeal Judgment Affirmed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Construction of phrase 'nearest recurring anniversary of the date of the lease' in s.1(c) of 52 Vic. ch. 23 (1889)
  2. 2 Whether non‑payment of annual rental under the 1889 amending Act could cause summary forfeiture of leases existing at passage when lessee subsequently entered into rental agreement
  3. 3 Whether tender of rent on June 9, 1894 prevented forfeiture declared May 22, 1894

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that 'nearest recurring anniversary of the date of the lease' means the next ensuing anniversary measured from the date of the lease instrument (June 10, 1889), so rent for 1894 was not due on May 22, 1894 and the tender on June 9, 1894 was in time; further, the 1889 amending Act did not authorize summary forfeiture without the formalities required by the original statute for leases that existed when the Act passed and subsequently entered into rental agreements, therefore the declared forfeiture and subsequent licence were void.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Forfeiture declared void for want of required formalities; prospecting licence issued to appellants set aside.