Canadian Ice Machine v. Sinclair

Canadian Ice Machine v. Sinclair

The agreement constituted a binding retainer/consultancy under which the respondent was to be available when called upon; the company's notice was a repudiation which the respondent validly rejected, keeping the contract alive, and the appropriate remedy was damages measured by the amounts payable under the agreement up to the date of assessment subject to the duty to mitigate; a declaration of the contract's subsistence was appropriate as of the assessment date.

Citation
[1955] SCR 777
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Canadian Ice Machine Company Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: J. Horace Sinclair
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1955
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Breach of Employment/consultancy Contract / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Appeal for British Columbia (final Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Termination Without Cause, Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Repudiation and Election, Restrictive Covenants, Specific Performance (personal Service)
Source Language
English
Labour Law Contract Law Employment Law Civil Remedies Termination Without Cause Damages Mitigation of Loss Repudiation and Election +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Ice Machine Company Limited

Appellant/defendant

J. Horace Sinclair

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Breach of Employment/consultancy Contract / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Appeal for British Columbia (final Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement was a mere hiring contract or a continuing retainer/consultancy enforceable by the employee
  2. 2 Whether the employer's notice cancelling the retainer was a repudiation and what effect the employee's rejection of that repudiation had
  3. 3 What remedy the employee is entitled to (damages for breach v. recovery of contract instalments or specific performance)

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement constituted a binding retainer/consultancy under which the respondent was to be available when called upon; the company's notice was a repudiation which the respondent validly rejected, keeping the contract alive, and the appropriate remedy was damages measured by the amounts payable under the agreement up to the date of assessment subject to the duty to mitigate; a declaration of the contract's subsistence was appropriate as of the assessment date.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Declaration that the agreement of November 27, 1946 was valid and subsisting as of January 28, 1953