Irwin v. Campbell

Irwin v. Campbell

The award was set aside because valuators, appointed under separate notices for separate leases, improperly treated the adjoining improvements as a single whole, so the statutory/contractual condition precedent of separate valuations was not satisfied; however, applying the principle in Cameron v. Cuddy the court must not dismiss the action but remit the matter to valuators or appoint referees to ascertain the separate values and permit recovery accordingly.

Citation
(1915) 51 SCR 358
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Eliza Jane Irwin; Respondent/plaintiff: Frank Alexander Campbell
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 May 1915
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Decision on Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; valuation set aside; action not dismissed; matter remitted for determination of separate values by the same valuators or by referees to be appointed
Legal Topics
Valuation of Improvements, Assignment, Termination of Lease, Valuators' Duties, Condition Precedent
Source Language
English
Lease Property Contract Valuation of Improvements Assignment Termination of Lease Valuators' Duties Condition Precedent

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eliza Jane Irwin

Appellant/defendant

Frank Alexander Campbell

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Decision on Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether valuators could legally aggregate valuation for buildings on two separately demised lots into a single lump sum
  2. 2 Whether counsel present at valuators' proceedings could bind the client to a single valuation without express authority
  3. 3 Whether failure to conduct separate valuations pursuant to separate notices nullifies the condition precedent to recovery under each lease

Ratio Decidendi

The award was set aside because valuators, appointed under separate notices for separate leases, improperly treated the adjoining improvements as a single whole, so the statutory/contractual condition precedent of separate valuations was not satisfied; however, applying the principle in Cameron v. Cuddy the court must not dismiss the action but remit the matter to valuators or appoint referees to ascertain the separate values and permit recovery accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; valuation set aside; action not dismissed; matter remitted for determination of separate values by the same valuators or by referees to be appointed

Orders

  • Allow appeal
  • Set aside the valuation awarding $35,000 as a lump sum