Dyck v. Dacon Corporation Limited
The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the rights under the 1988 agreement were predicated on registration of a new subdivision plan, that Dacon made reasonable efforts to obtain approval and registration, the new plan was never approved or registered, and therefore Dacon did not breach the agreement,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 635
- Parties
- Appellant: Alfred Dyck; Respondent: Dacon Corporation Limited; Respondent: Lucia Maria Ruthland; Respondent: Taras Kowalczyszyn
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 1 September 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated April 14, 2008
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Condition Precedent, Subdivision Plan Registration, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alfred Dyck
Appellant
Dacon Corporation Limited
Respondent
Lucia Maria Ruthland
Respondent
Taras Kowalczyszyn
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Judgment Dated April 14, 2008
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Dacon breached the July 19, 1988 agreement
- 2 Whether registration of the new plan of subdivision was a condition precedent to rights under the agreement
- 3 Whether Dacon made reasonable efforts to obtain registration
Ratio Decidendi
The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the rights under the 1988 agreement were predicated on registration of a new subdivision plan, that Dacon made reasonable efforts to obtain approval and registration, the new plan was never approved or registered, and therefore Dacon did not breach the agreement, making any assessment of damages unnecessary.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs fixed at $12,460 inclusive of disbursements and GST
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Dyck v. Dacon Corporation Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-09-01 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 635 Docket numbers C48764 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Sharpe, Robert J.; MacFarland, Jean Louise Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Dyck v. Dacon Corporation Limited, 2009 ONCA 635 DATE: 20090901 DOCKET: C48764 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, Sharpe and MacFarland JJ.A. BETWEEN Alfred Dyck Plaintiff (Appellant) and Dacon Corporation Limited, Lucia Maria Ruthland and Taras Kowalczyszyn Defendants (Respondent) Jason Dutrizac and D. Kenneth Gibson, for the appellant John R. Crouchman, for the respondent Heard: August 28, 2009 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Alan D. Sheffield of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 14, 2008. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, the claim asserted in this action arises solely under the July 19, 1988 agreement. That is how the claim is pleaded and that is how it was dealt with by the trial judge. [2] The rights under the 1988 agreement were all predicated on the registration of the new plan of a subdivision. The trial judge found that Dacon made reasonable efforts to get the plans registered. Despite those efforts, the new plan of subdivision was never approved. Dacon therefore was never in breach of the agreement. [3] Even if the steps Dacon took in 1993 made compliance with paragraph 4 of the agreement more difficult, its obligations under that paragraph was never triggered. [4] For these reasons, we see no error in the trial judge’s conclusion that Dacon did not breach the agreement. [5] Accordingly, it is unnecessary to deal with the issue of damages. [6] The appeal is dismissed, with costs fixed at $12,460, inclusive of disbursements and GST.