Brownscombe v. Public Trustee of Province of Alberta

Brownscombe v. Public Trustee of Province of Alberta

The building of a house on the farm at the deceased’s suggestion and almost wholly at the plaintiff’s expense was an act of part performance unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement to transfer the land; that act, together with corroborated evidence of promises, removed the Statute of Frauds bar and entitled the plaintiff to the proceeds of sale ($38,000) with interest; the Appellate Division erred in holding the house construction was not part performance and in denying specific relief.

Citation
[1969] SCR 658
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Matthew H. Brownscombe; Defendant/respondent: The Public Trustee of the Province of Alberta, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Marcell Vercamert
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 May 1969
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal Concerning Specific Performance and Statute of Frauds / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored; cross‑appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Part Performance, Specific Performance, Oral Agreement, Corroboration of Oral Evidence, Unilateral Contracts
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Property Estate Administration Statute of Frauds Part Performance Specific Performance Oral Agreement +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew H. Brownscombe

Plaintiff/appellant

The Public Trustee of the Province of Alberta, Administrator of the Estate of Robert Marcell Vercamert

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal Concerning Specific Performance and Statute of Frauds / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement existed by which the deceased agreed to leave his farm to the plaintiff in return for services
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff’s acts were part performance that were "unequivocally referable" to the alleged land transaction so as to remove the Statute of Frauds bar
  3. 3 Whether the construction of a house by the plaintiff on the farm constituted part performance

Ratio Decidendi

The building of a house on the farm at the deceased’s suggestion and almost wholly at the plaintiff’s expense was an act of part performance unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement to transfer the land; that act, together with corroborated evidence of promises, removed the Statute of Frauds bar and entitled the plaintiff to the proceeds of sale ($38,000) with interest; the Appellate Division erred in holding the house construction was not part performance and in denying specific relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored; cross‑appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Trial judgment restored awarding appellant $38,000 (proceeds of sale) plus accrued interest; respondent to account to appellant for same
  • Cross‑appeal dismissed with costs