Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission v. Wallace

Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission v. Wallace

The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's order granting a new trial was confirmed because there was some evidence that the engineer's certificate might have been improperly withheld through interference or coercion, making the issue one for a jury rather than a non‑suit as a matter of law.

Citation
(1906) 37 SCR 696
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission; Plaintiff/respondent: Thomas Wallace
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 1906
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal of Ontario; Review of Court of Appeal Order Granting New Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal ordering a new trial confirmed
Legal Topics
Payment on Engineer's Certificate, Condition Precedent, Improper Interference and Coercion, Fraud, Procedural Relief/new Trial
Source Language
English
Contract Payment on Engineer's Certificate Condition Precedent Improper Interference and Coercion Fraud Procedural Relief/new Trial

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission

Defendant/appellant

Thomas Wallace

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal of Ontario; Review of Court of Appeal Order Granting New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment on certificate by chief engineer was a condition precedent to recovery.
  2. 2 Whether new commissioners improperly interfered or coerced the engineer to withhold certification.
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge properly nonsuited the plaintiff for lack of certificate.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed and the Court of Appeal's order granting a new trial was confirmed because there was some evidence that the engineer's certificate might have been improperly withheld through interference or coercion, making the issue one for a jury rather than a non‑suit as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Court of Appeal ordering a new trial confirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal confirmed