The Queen v. Persons

The Queen v. Persons

The Court held the June 1 notice complied with clause 18 and the respondent was in default; the alleged schedule of June 12 did not supersede or suspend the contractual notice; the Director acted with authority of the Minister (and the Minister ratified the action), therefore the cancellation of the contract on June 14 was valid. Consequently the Crown’s cross-demand for excess completion costs must be reheard to determine quantum.

Citation
[1967] SCR 649
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada; Respondent/plaintiff: E.J. Persons (E.J. Persons Construction)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1967
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Exchequer Court (contract Dispute Involving Crown) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Contract Cancellation, Notice Requirements, Authority and Ratification, Assignment of Contract Benefits, Damages and Cross Demand
Source Language
English
Contract Law Public/crown Law Construction Law Administrative Law Contract Cancellation Notice Requirements Authority and Ratification Assignment of Contract Benefits +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada

Appellant/defendant

E.J. Persons (E.J. Persons Construction)

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Exchequer Court (contract Dispute Involving Crown) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown validly cancelled the construction contract under clause 18
  2. 2 Whether the June 1, 1961 notice was sufficiently detailed and operative
  3. 3 Whether a schedule supplied on June 12 superseded the June 1 notice and delayed the running of the contractual cure period

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the June 1 notice complied with clause 18 and the respondent was in default; the alleged schedule of June 12 did not supersede or suspend the contractual notice; the Director acted with authority of the Minister (and the Minister ratified the action), therefore the cancellation of the contract on June 14 was valid. Consequently the Crown’s cross-demand for excess completion costs must be reheard to determine quantum.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the Crown
  • Decision of Exchequer Court insofar as it found improper cancellation reversed