Bradley v. Crittenden

Bradley v. Crittenden

The Appellate Division's judgment was affirmed: the evidence did not establish a confidential/fiduciary relation of the kind that automatically raises the presumption of undue influence, and even if such a presumption could be assumed, the respondent sufficiently rebutted it by credible testimony corroborated by surrounding circumstances and the donor's subsequent conduct, so the gift must stand.

Citation
[1932] SCR 552
Parties
Appellant — Residuary Legatee: Ernest F. Bradley; Appellant — Executor of the Will of George Moulton Goddard, Deceased: Hector Lang; Appellant — Executor of the Will of George Moulton Goddard, Deceased: Rev. Edward T. Scragg; Respondent — Donee/defendant: Jennie Crittenden
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 April 1932
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Equitable Relief (gift Challenged for Undue Influence) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta; Final Disposition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Presumption of Influence, Burden of Proof, Gifts, Confidential/fiduciary Relationships, Acquiescence and Ratification, Laches, Corroboration of Testimony
Source Language
English
Equity Trusts Wills Property Contract Undue Influence Presumption of Influence Burden of Proof +5 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest F. Bradley

Appellant — Residuary Legatee

Hector Lang

Appellant — Executor of the Will of George Moulton Goddard, Deceased

Rev. Edward T. Scragg

Appellant — Executor of the Will of George Moulton Goddard, Deceased

Jennie Crittenden

Respondent — Donee/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Equitable Relief (gift Challenged for Undue Influence) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta; Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relationship between donor and donee raised a presumption of undue influence
  2. 2 Whether pure friendship and affection suffice to raise the presumption
  3. 3 What onus lies on the donee to rebut the presumption and by what evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellate Division's judgment was affirmed: the evidence did not establish a confidential/fiduciary relation of the kind that automatically raises the presumption of undue influence, and even if such a presumption could be assumed, the respondent sufficiently rebutted it by credible testimony corroborated by surrounding circumstances and the donor's subsequent conduct, so the gift must stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to respondent
  • Application to reopen the case denied as unnecessary; costs of that application to be costs in the appeal