Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie et al.

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie et al.

The appeal was allowed because the common law rule of privity prevents non‑parties (the employees) from claiming the benefit of the lease insurance and no‑subrogation clauses absent clear evidence that the contracting parties intended to create an agency or trust relationship in favour of those employees; no such evidence existed, so the employees could not invoke the lease protections.

Citation
[1980] 2 SCR 228
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Greenwood Shopping Plaza Limited; Defendant/respondent: Robert Walker Beattie; Defendant/respondent: Roy Vincent Pettipas; Tenant/defendant: Neil J. Buchanan Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 1980
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Nova Scotia Appeal Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Third Party Rights, Subrogation, Vicarious Liability, Insurance Clauses, Waiver of Subrogation
Source Language
English
Contract Law Tort (negligence) Agency Trust Insurance Law Privity of Contract Third Party Rights Subrogation +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Robert Walker Beattie

Defendant/respondent

Roy Vincent Pettipas

Defendant/respondent

Neil J. Buchanan Limited

Tenant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Nova Scotia Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employees who are not parties to a lease may claim the benefit of insurance and no‑subrogation clauses in that lease
  2. 2 Whether agency or trust exceptions to the doctrine of privity apply to extend contractual protection to non‑party employees
  3. 3 Whether factual findings support treating employees as identified with their corporate employer for contractual purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the common law rule of privity prevents non‑parties (the employees) from claiming the benefit of the lease insurance and no‑subrogation clauses absent clear evidence that the contracting parties intended to create an agency or trust relationship in favour of those employees; no such evidence existed, so the employees could not invoke the lease protections.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Appeal Division set aside as against respondents Robert Walker Beattie and Roy Vincent Pettipas
  • Judgment of Trial Division varied so that Greenwood Shopping Plaza Limited has judgment against Neil J. Buchanan Limited, Robert Walker Beattie and Roy Vincent Pettipas for its damages except that against Neil J. Buchanan Limited those losses which were insured or should have been insured under clauses 14 and 15 of...