Upper Canada College v. Smith

Upper Canada College v. Smith

The amendment to s.13 of the Ontario Statute of Frauds is not retrospective; absent clear legislative intent to the contrary its language ('shall be in writing') and the presumption against retrospective statutes require that it apply prospectively, so actions on contracts made before the statute came into force are not barred; the Appellate Division's allowance to amend pleadings to claim damages was proper under the circumstances.

Citation
(1920) 61 SCR 413
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Upper Canada College; Plaintiff Respondent: F.J. Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 1920
Procedural Posture
Contract Action (commission for Sale of Land) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Ontario Statute of Frauds S.13 (6 Geo. V. C.24; 8 Geo. V. C.20), Pleading Amendment to Claim Damages, Commission on Sale of Real Property, Lex Fori Vs Substantive Rights
Source Language
English
Contract Law Statute of Frauds Procedural Law Remedies Retrospective Operation of Statutes Ontario Statute of Frauds S.13 (6 Geo. V. C.24; 8 Geo. V. C.20) Pleading Amendment to Claim Damages Commission on Sale of Real Property +1 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Upper Canada College

Defendant Appellant

F.J. Smith

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Action (commission for Sale of Land) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.13 of the Ontario Statute of Frauds (added by 6 Geo. V. c.24, amended by 8 Geo. V. c.20) applies retrospectively to contracts made before it came into force
  2. 2 Whether the provision is a procedural rule applying to pending and later actions or a substantive rule that takes away an existing right of action
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff should be permitted to amend pleadings to claim damages instead of commission

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to s.13 of the Ontario Statute of Frauds is not retrospective; absent clear legislative intent to the contrary its language ('shall be in writing') and the presumption against retrospective statutes require that it apply prospectively, so actions on contracts made before the statute came into force are not barred; the Appellate Division's allowance to amend pleadings to claim damages was proper under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed permitting the plaintiff to amend pleadings to claim damages or other relief; Idington J. dissenting