Richardson v. Tiffin

Richardson v. Tiffin

Majority held plaintiff entitled to an accounting: the written second and third agreements were supported by consideration and enforceable to require accounting; restrictive covenants if unenforceable were severable and did not invalidate the profit‑sharing obligations; plaintiff was not barred by the Medical Act from compelling an accounting; the complaint was contractual rather than a claim to an equitable trust, and trial judgment ordering accounting was restored.

Citation
[1940] SCR 635
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Stanley A. Richardson; Defendant / Respondent: Eldon R. Tiffin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 1940
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Contract/accounting / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Restored to Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of plaintiff; order for accounting
Legal Topics
Consideration, Restrictive Covenants, Severability, Agency and Trust, Statute of Frauds S.4, Accounting, Mistake as to Legal Rights, Promissory Notes
Source Language
English
Contract Medical Regulation Equity/trust Commercial Law Consideration Restrictive Covenants Severability Agency and Trust +4 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stanley A. Richardson

Plaintiff / Appellant

Eldon R. Tiffin

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Concerning Contract/accounting / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Restored to Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant’s second and third written agreements had consideration and were enforceable
  2. 2 Whether restrictive covenants were void and if void whether they were severable
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff held rights as principal or beneficiary of a trust/agency in the vendor–purchaser transaction with the retiring physician

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held plaintiff entitled to an accounting: the written second and third agreements were supported by consideration and enforceable to require accounting; restrictive covenants if unenforceable were severable and did not invalidate the profit‑sharing obligations; plaintiff was not barred by the Medical Act from compelling an accounting; the complaint was contractual rather than a claim to an equitable trust, and trial judgment ordering accounting was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of plaintiff; order for accounting

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Restore judgment of trial judge ordering full accounting by defendant to plaintiff