Saskatchewan Minerals v. Keyes

Saskatchewan Minerals v. Keyes

Majority held respondent’s oral evidence of a lost option was inadmissible and, in any event, any equitable interest created by an option or by a reservation of part of the lease rights was invalid without the Minister’s written consent under s.11; therefore the royalty could only be enforced as a contract against Astral and was not binding on Saskatchewan Minerals, so the appeal is allowed and the action dismissed.

Citation
[1972] SCR 703
Parties
Appellant: Saskatchewan Minerals; Respondent: Thomas E. Keyes
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 1971
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondent's action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Mining Leases, Option to Acquire Lease, Assignment, Overriding Royalty, Ministerial Consent, Admissibility of Lost Document Testimony, Alkali Mining Regulations S.11, Interest in Land
Source Language
English
Mines and Minerals Evidence Property Law Administrative/regulatory Law Mining Leases Option to Acquire Lease Assignment Overriding Royalty +4 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saskatchewan Minerals

Appellant

Thomas E. Keyes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent’s oral evidence about a lost option was admissible
  2. 2 Whether an option or reservation creating an equitable interest in an alkali lease required the Minister’s prior written consent under s.11 of the Alkali Mining Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the royalty clause in the June 3, 1948 agreement created an interest in land binding on a subsequent assignee

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held respondent’s oral evidence of a lost option was inadmissible and, in any event, any equitable interest created by an option or by a reservation of part of the lease rights was invalid without the Minister’s written consent under s.11; therefore the royalty could only be enforced as a contract against Astral and was not binding on Saskatchewan Minerals, so the appeal is allowed and the action dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondent's action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Respondent's action dismissed