Grandview v. Doering

Grandview v. Doering

Majority: The second action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it arises from the same impugned conduct already litigated; the aquifer theory was not shown to be a fact that could not, by reasonable diligence, have been discovered and advanced in the first action, therefore the respondent cannot relitigate the same subject-matter and the stay must be restored.

Citation
[1976] 2 SCR 621
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Town of Grandview; Respondent/plaintiff: Arthur Herbert Doering
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (nuisance/damages) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Manitoba Court of Appeal; Review of Order Staying Second Action
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order staying action restored.
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Res Judicata, Issue Estoppel, Continuing Cause of Action, Assessment of Damages, Aquifer/subsurface Saturation
Source Language
English
Tort Civil Procedure Property Nuisance Res Judicata Issue Estoppel Continuing Cause of Action Assessment of 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Town of Grandview

Appellant/defendant

Arthur Herbert Doering

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (nuisance/damages) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Manitoba Court of Appeal; Review of Order Staying Second Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second action alleging subsurface saturation via an aquifer is barred by res judicata/plea of prior adjudication
  2. 2 Whether the aquifer theory constituted a new fact not discoverable by reasonable diligence at the time of the first action
  3. 3 Whether Rule 222 and the doctrine of continuing cause of action preclude the subsequent claim

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: The second action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it arises from the same impugned conduct already litigated; the aquifer theory was not shown to be a fact that could not, by reasonable diligence, have been discovered and advanced in the first action, therefore the respondent cannot relitigate the same subject-matter and the stay must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order staying action restored.

Orders

  • Order staying the respondent's second action restored (stay reinstated)
  • Costs to appellant on appeal; no costs awarded for the respondent's withdrawn motion at hearing