Macfarlane v. Davis
- Citation
- (1910) 47 SCR 399
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 9 December 1910
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (sale of Land, Tort of Deceit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Saskatchewan; Judgment on Appeal Allowed With Costs
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 9 December 1910
- Posture
- Civil Appeal (sale of Land, Tort of Deceit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Saskatchewan; Judgment on Appeal Allowed With Costs
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The appeal was allowed because the Court held that deceit requires proof of dishonest knowledge or recklessness as to falsity and that an honest belief in the truth of a representation defeats liability for deceit; further, amendments introducing new causes of action are not to be allowed where they produce unfair prejudice inconsistent with the pleaded issues.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan reversed.
Orders
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan reversed
- Costs awarded to appellant
02
Material facts
Parties
Macfarlane
Appellant/defendant Counsel: Holman K.C.; A. J. KiddDavis
Respondent/plaintiff Counsel: Chrysler K.C.03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal (sale of Land, Tort of Deceit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Saskatchewan; Judgment on Appeal Allowed With Costs
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether an honest belief in the truth of a representation negates liability for deceit
- 02
Whether a pleading amendment adding a new cause of action was properly permitted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued that there was no actionable deceit because he honestly believed the representations he made and therefore lacked fraudulent intent; he also contested the allowance of an amendment that effectively introduced a new cause of action.
- Respondent
- Respondent maintained that misrepresentations were made and that deceit was established irrespective of asserted belief; respondent defended the amendment and relied on the Saskatchewan court's validation of the claim.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Supreme Court of Canada, Macfarlane v. Davis (1910) 47 SCR 399
To establish actionable deceit the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew a representation was false or was reckless as to its truth; an honest belief in the truth of the representation negates fraudulent intent.
- 02
Supreme Court of Canada, Macfarlane v. Davis (1910) 47 SCR 399
Courts will scrutinize amendments that introduce new causes of action and will not permit amendments that unfairly prejudice the opposing party or are inconsistent with the issues pleaded and tried.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The appeal was allowed because the Court held that deceit requires proof of dishonest knowledge or recklessness as to falsity and that an honest belief in the truth of a representation defeats liability for deceit; further, amendments introducing new causes of action are not to be allowed where they produce unfair prejudice inconsistent with the pleaded issues.
Obiter and limits
- Pleadings must be interpreted in light of the issues actually raised at trial and not expanded by late amendments to the prejudice of the other party.
- Finding of liability for deceit cannot rest on mere misstatement absent proof of fraudulent intent or recklessness.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan reversed.
- Appeal allowed with costs
- Judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan reversed
- Costs awarded to appellant
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 9 December 1910
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 9 December 1910
Macfarlane v. Davis Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 1910-12-09 Report (1910) 47 SCR 399 Judges Fitzpatrick, Charles; Girouard, Désiré; Davies, Louis Henry; Idington, John; Anglin, Francis Alexander On appeal from Saskatchewan Subjects Sale Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Macfarlane v. Davis, [1910] S.C.R. 399 Date: 1910-12-09 Macfarlane v. Davis. 1910: October 21; 1910: December 9. Present: Sir Charles Fitzpatrick C.J. and Girouard, Davies, Idington and Anglin JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN. Sale of land—Deceit—Misrepresentation—Honest belief—Pleading— Amendment—Adding new cause of action. APPEAL from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan[1], reversing the judgment of Johnstone J., at the trial, Newlands J. dissenting, and maintaining the plaintiff's (respondent's) action with costs. On the appeal of Macfarlane, one of the defendants, to the Supreme Court of Canada, after hearing counsel on behalf of both parties, the court reserved judgment, and, on a subsequent day, the appeal was allowed with costs, Idington J. dissenting. Appeal allowed with costs. Holman K.C. and A. J. Kidd for the appellant. Chrysler K.C. for the respondent. [1] 3 Sask. L.R. 446, sub nom. Davis v. Burt.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.