Clark v. Docksteader

Clark v. Docksteader

Majority held that placement of the initial post within previously granted ground does not necessarily invalidate a claim where s.16(g) applies; because the locator had discovered mineral in place, made a bona fide attempt to comply with the Act, and the misplacement was not calculated to mislead other prospectors, the curative subsection validated the location; appeal dismissed and lower court judgment affirmed.

Citation
(1905) 36 SCR 622
Parties
Defendant Appellant: W.G. Clark; Plaintiff Respondent: John Docksteader
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1905
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (mining Claim) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed
Legal Topics
Staking Claim, Initial Post Placement, Curative Provision (s.16(g)), Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Mining Law Property Law Staking Claim Initial Post Placement Curative Provision (s.16(g)) Statutory Interpretation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

W.G. Clark

Defendant Appellant

John Docksteader

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (mining Claim) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether placement of initial post within ground previously granted by the Crown invalidates a mining claim
  2. 2 Whether sub‑section (g) of s.16 (R.S.B.C. ch.135 as amended by 61 Vict. ch.33) can cure placement defects
  3. 3 Whether the defect was of a character calculated to mislead other prospectors

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that placement of the initial post within previously granted ground does not necessarily invalidate a claim where s.16(g) applies; because the locator had discovered mineral in place, made a bona fide attempt to comply with the Act, and the misplacement was not calculated to mislead other prospectors, the curative subsection validated the location; appeal dismissed and lower court judgment affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs