Royal Bank of Canada v. Skene and Christie

Royal Bank of Canada v. Skene and Christie

The judgment was set aside because the written order contained a common error that misexpressed the parties' agreed intentions and deprived the respondents of their right to appeal; the appellant, having successfully argued the order was unappealable, could not thereafter assert an opposite construction, and equity required rectification (Wilding v. Sanderson).

Citation
(1919) 59 SCR 211
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Royal Bank of Canada; Plaintiff/respondent: J. L. Skene; Plaintiff/respondent: J. S. Christie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 October 1919
Procedural Posture
Collection Action / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed; the challenged consent-styled judgment was set aside/rectified and respondents' action maintained.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Common Mistake/rectification, Consent Judgment, Res Judicata/estoppel, Functus Officio
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeals Judgments Equity Setting Aside Judgment Common Mistake/rectification Consent Judgment Res Judicata/estoppel +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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Bank of Canada

Defendant/appellant

J. L. Skene

Plaintiff/respondent

J. S. Christie

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Collection Action / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judgment drawn in a form that purported to be by consent but did not reflect the parties' true agreement could be set aside for common error
  2. 2 Whether the form of the judgment rendered it unappealable and estopped the respondents from appealing
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were precluded by res judicata or by the appellant's conduct from seeking rectification by action rather than motion

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment was set aside because the written order contained a common error that misexpressed the parties' agreed intentions and deprived the respondents of their right to appeal; the appellant, having successfully argued the order was unappealable, could not thereafter assert an opposite construction, and equity required rectification (Wilding v. Sanderson).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed; the challenged consent-styled judgment was set aside/rectified and respondents' action maintained.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed