Farah v. Barki

Farah v. Barki

The trial judge’s findings, including observed demeanour and surrounding circumstances, constituted a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation by the respondent as to the nature of the document; those findings were supported by the evidence and justified refusal to enforce the written agreement, so the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view and the trial judgment was restored.

Citation
[1955] SCR 107
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Brian Farah; Plaintiff Respondent: Mayer A. Barki
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1955
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed; judgment at trial restored.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unilateral Mistake, Appellate Deference to Trial Findings, Enforceability of Written Agreements
Source Language
English
Contract Fraud Civil Procedure Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unilateral Mistake Appellate Deference to Trial Findings Enforceability of Written Agreements

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Farah

Defendant Appellant

Mayer A. Barki

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge’s findings amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether there was evidence to support the trial judge’s finding of fraud
  3. 3 What duty an appellate court has when reviewing findings of credibility and fact by a trial judge

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge’s findings, including observed demeanour and surrounding circumstances, constituted a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation by the respondent as to the nature of the document; those findings were supported by the evidence and justified refusal to enforce the written agreement, so the Court of Appeal erred in substituting its view and the trial judgment was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed; judgment at trial restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs here and in the Court of Appeal
  • Judgment at trial restored (action dismissed)