MacDonald v. Pier

MacDonald v. Pier

Majority: the statement of claim did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action and appellant offered no assurance or evidence of material new evidence not available at the original trial; dismissal by the trial judge (and affirmation by Appellate Division) was justified as either proper striking of inadequate pleadings or as a perpetual stay for frivolous/vexatious/abusive proceedings and will not be disturbed.

Citation
[1923] SCR 107
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): J. W. Macdonald; Respondent (defendant): E. Pier
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Action to Set Aside Judgment Obtained in Earlier Action (alleged Fraud/perjury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Appellate Division affirmed (Duff J. dissenting)
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Perjury, Abuse of Process, Pleading Sufficiency, New Evidence
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Fraud Appeal Setting Aside Judgment Perjury Abuse of Process Pleading Sufficiency +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. W. Macdonald

Appellant (plaintiff)

E. Pier

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Action to Set Aside Judgment Obtained in Earlier Action (alleged Fraud/perjury) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim sufficiently disclosed a cause of action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud/perjury
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge properly dismissed the action without hearing further evidence
  3. 3 Whether new evidence discovered since the original trial is required to impeach a judgment for fraud

Ratio Decidendi

Majority: the statement of claim did not sufficiently disclose a cause of action and appellant offered no assurance or evidence of material new evidence not available at the original trial; dismissal by the trial judge (and affirmation by Appellate Division) was justified as either proper striking of inadequate pleadings or as a perpetual stay for frivolous/vexatious/abusive proceedings and will not be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Appellate Division affirmed (Duff J. dissenting)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs