Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of Canada

Boyce Construction (Ottawa) Ltd. v. Loeb

Contract Damages Breach of Warranty Agreement of Sale Undertaking

Citation: [1978] 1 SCR 1095
Status: Judgment
Jurisdiction: Canada
Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Decision: 12 May 1977
Posture: Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Language: English

More details

Court: Supreme Court of Canada
Decision: 12 May 1977
Posture: Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Language: English

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

Holding and result

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, concluding that the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the plaintiffs' appeal from the trial judge's dismissal and that the plaintiffs were entitled to pursue damages for breach of warranty and undertaking.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

Appeal dismissed
Costs awarded to respondents

Material facts

Parties

Boyce Construction (Ottawa) Limited

Appellant Counsel: John J. Nesbitt, Q.C.

David B. Loeb

Respondent Counsel: Walter B. Williston, Q.C.; D.M.J. Rock

Joyce Loeb

Respondent Counsel: Walter B. Williston, Q.C.; D.M.J. Rock

Procedural history

Posture

Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Questions and positions

Legal issues

01
Whether damages are recoverable for breach of warranty in an agreement of sale
02
Whether there was a breach of an undertaking giving rise to damages
03
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly reversed the trial judge's dismissal

Party arguments

Applicant: Appellant argued the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the plaintiffs' appeal and that the trial judge correctly dismissed the action for damages for breach of warranty and undertaking.
Respondent: Respondents argued the trial judge was wrong to dismiss and that damages are payable for the defendant's breach of warranty and undertaking under the agreement of sale.

Court’s reasoning

Legal principles

01
Common law

Breach of warranty in a contract of sale entitles the innocent party to damages.
02
Court of Appeal practice; (1973), 17 N.R. 101

An appellate court may overturn a trial judge where the trial judge's decision is erroneous on the facts or law.

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, concluding that the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the plaintiffs' appeal from the trial judge's dismissal and that the plaintiffs were entitled to pursue damages for breach of warranty and undertaking.

Court disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed
Costs awarded to respondents

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of Canada · 12 May 1977

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Source document

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of Canada

Judgment· 12 May 1977

[1978] 1 SCR 1095

Boyce Construction (Ottawa) Ltd. v. Loeb Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1977-05-12 Report [1978] 1 SCR 1095 Judges Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian On appeal from Ontario Subjects Contract Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Boyce Construction (Ottawa) Ltd. v. Loeb, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 1095 Date: 1977-05-12 Boyce Construction (Ottawa) Limited (Defendant) Appellant; and David B. Loeb and Joyce Loeb (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1977: May 12. Present: Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon and Dickson JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Contract—Damages—Breach of warranty—Agreement of sale. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] allowing an appeal from a judgment of Moorhouse J. dismissing an action for damages for breach of warranty and undertaking. Appeal dismissed. John J. Nesbitt, Q.C., for the appellant. Walter B. Williston, Q.C., and D.M.J. Rock, for the respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by JUDSON J.—It will not be necessary to hear you Mr. Williston and Mr. Rock. We are all of the opinion that the Court of Appeal came to the correct result. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. Solicitors for the appellant: Hewitt, Hewitt, Nesbitt, Reid, McDonald & Tierney, Ottawa. Solicitors for the respondents: Soloway, Wright, Houston, Greenberg, O’Grady & Morin, Ottawa. [1] (1973), 17 N.R. 101.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.