Phillips et al. v. Samilo et al.

Phillips et al. v. Samilo et al.

The estate of A.J. was liable to contribute because the settlement was validly made by persons with apparent authority; the solicitor had no notice of A.J.’s incompetence; Sophia, upon appointment as committee, had authority and accepted a refund arising from the settlement which amounted to ratification; alternatively unjust enrichment entitled the appellants to contribution.

Citation
[1972] SCR 201
Parties
Appellants/defendants: Victoria Phillips and Kenneth Meredith, Executors of the Estate of Victor Alexander Phillips; Appellant/defendant: B.B. Enterprises Ltd.; Respondents/plaintiffs: Sonia Samilo and Sophia Ewachniuk, Executrices of the Estate of Alexander Joseph Pylypchuk
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 June 1971
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored in respect of the appellants' counterclaim for contribution; Court of Appeal judgment varied.
Legal Topics
Power of Attorney, Ratification, Mental Capacity of Principal, Contribution Between Payors, Settlement With Crown
Source Language
English
Agency Tax Law Estates Restitution/unjust Enrichment Power of Attorney Ratification Mental Capacity of Principal Contribution Between Payors +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victoria Phillips and Kenneth Meredith, Executors of the Estate of Victor Alexander Phillips

Appellants/defendants

B.B. Enterprises Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Sonia Samilo and Sophia Ewachniuk, Executrices of the Estate of Alexander Joseph Pylypchuk

Respondents/plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate of A.J. Pylypchuk is liable to contribute to the tax settlement paid on behalf of the family group
  2. 2 Whether Sophia’s power of attorney remained operative or was revoked by A.J.’s incompetence for purposes of binding A.J. and his estate
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of a refund by Sophia as committee constituted ratification of the settlement and payments

Ratio Decidendi

The estate of A.J. was liable to contribute because the settlement was validly made by persons with apparent authority; the solicitor had no notice of A.J.’s incompetence; Sophia, upon appointment as committee, had authority and accepted a refund arising from the settlement which amounted to ratification; alternatively unjust enrichment entitled the appellants to contribution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored in respect of the appellants' counterclaim for contribution; Court of Appeal judgment varied.

Orders

  • Allow appeal
  • Restore Seaton J.'s judgment insofar as it granted contribution by A.J.'s estate to the tax settlement