Cargill Grain Co. Ltd. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd.

Cargill Grain Co. Ltd. v. Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd.

Lis pendens applied because there was identity of parties, cause and object between the Montreal action and the cross-demand in the Saguenay action; therefore the cross-demand was barred and additional damages could not be pursued in a separate action but must be claimed incidentally under art.215. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1965] SCR 594
Parties
Plaintiff; Appellant; Cross Plaintiff: Cargill Grain Company Limited; Defendant; Respondent; Cross Defendant: Foundation Company Of Canada Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (action in Damages for Breach of Building Contract) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Lis Pendens, Res Judicata, Cross Demand, Preliminary Exception, Incidental Demand, Code of Civil Procedure Art.173, Code of Civil Procedure Art.215
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Construction Law Property/building Law Lis Pendens Res Judicata Cross Demand Preliminary Exception +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cargill Grain Company Limited

Plaintiff; Appellant; Cross Plaintiff

Foundation Company Of Canada Limited

Defendant; Respondent; Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (action in Damages for Breach of Building Contract) / Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether lis pendens applies to bar a cross-demand filed in a different district
  2. 2 Whether the identity of parties, cause and object exists between the two actions
  3. 3 Whether additional damages arising after institution of the first action must be pleaded by incidental demand under art.215 or can be pursued in a separate action

Ratio Decidendi

Lis pendens applied because there was identity of parties, cause and object between the Montreal action and the cross-demand in the Saguenay action; therefore the cross-demand was barred and additional damages could not be pursued in a separate action but must be claimed incidentally under art.215. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-demand in the Saguenay action barred by lis pendens and to be struck out