Shives Lumber Co. v. Price Bros. & Co.

Shives Lumber Co. v. Price Bros. & Co.

Majority ordered a new trial because the written departmental material was latently ambiguous as to whether the Deputy Minister intended to approve the survey and plans as required by Regulation No.24; parol evidence is admissible to resolve that ambiguity and determine whether ministerial approval cured procedural irregularities, so factfinding must be reopened.

Citation
(1918) 58 SCR 142
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Shives Lumber Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Price Brothers & Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 1918
Procedural Posture
Civil (recovery of Damages for Timber/trespass; Boundary Dispute) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence, Latent Ambiguity, Survey Approval, Regulatory Compliance, Boundary Disputes, Ministerial Ratification, New Trial
Source Language
English
Evidence Administrative Law Property Law Administrative Procedure Parol Evidence Latent Ambiguity Survey Approval Regulatory Compliance +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shives Lumber Company

Appellant (defendant)

Price Brothers & Company

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil (recovery of Damages for Timber/trespass; Boundary Dispute) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Minister's initialing/approval of the Superintendent's report constituted the approval of the survey and plans required by Regulation No.24
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence is admissible to resolve a latent ambiguity in written administrative approval
  3. 3 Whether procedural irregularities (absence of prior ministerial approval or joint written request) invalidate the survey or can be cured by subsequent ministerial approval

Ratio Decidendi

Majority ordered a new trial because the written departmental material was latently ambiguous as to whether the Deputy Minister intended to approve the survey and plans as required by Regulation No.24; parol evidence is admissible to resolve that ambiguity and determine whether ministerial approval cured procedural irregularities, so factfinding must be reopened.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • New trial ordered to determine whether the Deputy Minister intended to approve the survey and plans as required by Regulation No.24