Nanoose Wellington Collieries Ltd. v. Jack

Nanoose Wellington Collieries Ltd. v. Jack

The appellant judgment is allowed because the plaintiff bore the burden to prove he executed the transfer in ignorance of the release clause and his evidence failed to discharge that onus; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were justified and should not have been reversed by the Court of Appeal.

Citation
[1926] SCR 495
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Nanoose Wellington Collieries Ltd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Adam Jack
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 1926
Procedural Posture
Sale/contract; Specific Performance and Indemnity Claim / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Release of Liability, Non Est Factum, Onus of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses, Instrument Execution
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Fraud Civil Procedure Specific Performance Release of Liability Non Est Factum +3 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nanoose Wellington Collieries Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Adam Jack

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Sale/contract; Specific Performance and Indemnity Claim / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff signed the transfer instrument in ignorance of a release clause
  2. 2 Who bears the burden of proof to establish ignorance or non est factum
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in overturning the trial judge's credibility findings

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant judgment is allowed because the plaintiff bore the burden to prove he executed the transfer in ignorance of the release clause and his evidence failed to discharge that onus; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings were justified and should not have been reversed by the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and in the Court of Appeal
  • Judgment of the trial judge restored (action dismissed)