Donkin v. Disher

Donkin v. Disher

Under the applicable British Columbia statutes the plaintiff (employee) bore the onus to prove admission as a partner in the strict legal sense; mere profit‑sharing and loose use of the term 'partnership' in correspondence or a dissolution notice did not establish a legal partnership where there was no clear...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1913) 49 SCR 60
Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Henry Donkin; Respondent; Plaintiff: Clarence Edward Disher
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 1913
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment on Merits Reversing Court of Appeal and Restoring Trial Judge's Dismissal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Profit Sharing, Master and Servant, Partnership Definition, Onus of Proof, Statutory Interpretation, Estoppel
Source Language
english
Labour Law Partnership Law Employment Law Commercial Law Profit Sharing Master and Servant Partnership Definition Onus of Proof +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Donkin

Appellant; Defendant

Clarence Edward Disher

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment on Merits Reversing Court of Appeal and Restoring Trial Judge's Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a profit-sharing arrangement created a legal partnership
  2. 2 Whether the employee was admitted as a partner under an alleged oral agreement
  3. 3 Effect of R.S.B.C. 1911, c.153 s.3 (Master and Servant Act) on the presumption of partnership

Ratio Decidendi

Under the applicable British Columbia statutes the plaintiff (employee) bore the onus to prove admission as a partner in the strict legal sense; mere profit‑sharing and loose use of the term 'partnership' in correspondence or a dissolution notice did not establish a legal partnership where there was no clear agreement, mutual assent, or change in conduct or accounts to reflect co‑proprietorship. The trial judge's factual finding of no partnership was not displaced.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; plaintiff's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of Morrison J. restored