Glatt v. Glatt

Glatt v. Glatt

Appeal dismissed because fraud was not established and the appellant failed to prove that the allegedly newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence; additionally, a party cannot litigate an inconsistent defence in a separate action after presenting a different defence at the original trial.

Citation
[1937] SCR 347
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: G.F. Glatt, Trustee of the Property of William D. Trenwith, a Bankrupt; Defendant/respondent: G.F. Glatt, Trustee of the Property of Stewart Goddard, a Bankrupt
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 February 1937
Procedural Posture
Action to Set Aside Judgment (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Newly Discovered Evidence, Fraud, Finality of Judgments, Inconsistent Defences, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Bankruptcy Appeals Judgments Setting Aside Judgment Newly Discovered Evidence Fraud +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.F. Glatt, Trustee of the Property of William D. Trenwith, a Bankrupt

Plaintiff/appellant

G.F. Glatt, Trustee of the Property of Stewart Goddard, a Bankrupt

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Action to Set Aside Judgment (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the earlier judgment was procured by fraud
  2. 2 Whether newly discovered evidence justified setting aside the judgment
  3. 3 Whether a defendant may bring a separate action asserting an inconsistent defence after litigating and losing on a different defence

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because fraud was not established and the appellant failed to prove that the allegedly newly discovered evidence could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence; additionally, a party cannot litigate an inconsistent defence in a separate action after presenting a different defence at the original trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario restored