Guyer Oil Co. Ltd. et al. v. Fulton et al.

Guyer Oil Co. Ltd. et al. v. Fulton et al.

The appeal was dismissed because the concurrent factual findings did not establish a fiduciary breach or resulting trust under the legal principles relied on by the appellants, and the trial judge properly excluded the proffered Bilida rebuttal evidence where the appellants failed to establish a foundation in cross‑examination.

Citation
[1977] 2 SCR 791
Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Guyer Oil Company, Ltd.; Appellant Plaintiff: Golden Eagle Oil and Gas Limited; Appellant Plaintiff: Husky Oil (Alberta) Ltd.; Respondent Defendant: John M. Fulton; Respondent Defendant: Gladstone Petroleum Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 June 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (mines and Minerals, Trusts) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Fiduciary Obligations, Confidential Information, Admissibility of Rebuttal Evidence, Concurrent Findings of Fact
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Oil and Gas Equity and Trusts Evidence Resulting Trust Fiduciary Obligations Confidential Information Admissibility of Rebuttal Evidence +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guyer Oil Company, Ltd.

Appellant Plaintiff

Golden Eagle Oil and Gas Limited

Appellant Plaintiff

Husky Oil (Alberta) Ltd.

Appellant Plaintiff

John M. Fulton

Respondent Defendant

Gladstone Petroleum Ltd.

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (mines and Minerals, Trusts) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Fulton acquired an oil and gas lease while under fiduciary obligations to the plaintiffs such that a resulting trust arose
  2. 2 Whether confidential information acquired by a consulting engineer gave rise to liability to the plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether Bilida evidence was admissible in rebuttal absent foundation in cross‑examination

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the concurrent factual findings did not establish a fiduciary breach or resulting trust under the legal principles relied on by the appellants, and the trial judge properly excluded the proffered Bilida rebuttal evidence where the appellants failed to establish a foundation in cross‑examination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment accordingly.