Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas, (1980) 32 N.R. 163 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and McIntyre, JJ.
• Citation: (1980), 32 N.R. 163 (SCC),39 NSR (2d) 119,3 ACWS (2d) 351,1980 CanLII 202 (SCC),[1980] 2 SCR 228,111 DLR (3d) 257,10 BLR 234,71 APR 119,[1980] SCJ No 59 (QL),32 NR 163
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 17 June 1980

Greenwood Shopping Plaza v. Beattie (1980), 32 N.R. 163 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas

Indexed As: Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and McIntyre, JJ.

June 17, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a commercial lease and an agreement by a landlord to insure the leased premises against fire loss. Employees of the tenant negligently started a fire which destroyed the rented premises. The landlord sued the tenant and its employees for damages for loss of the premises. The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division held that the landlord and its insurer were precluded from recovering damages for the fire loss from the tenant and its employees, except for any uninsured losses. The judgments of the Trial Division are reported at 31 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 52 A.P.R. 1; 34 N.S.R.(2d) 217; 59 A.P.R. 217. The landlord appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and stated that the tenant and the employees were entitled to the benefit of the landlord's agreement to insure the premises. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reported at 31 N.S.R.(2d) 168; 52 A.P.R. 168. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment respecting the employees. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the employees were not entitled to the benefit of the landlord's agreement to insure. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in the absence of evidence of the intent of the landlord, it could not be presumed that the landlord's promise to insure was intended to benefit the tenant's employees.

Contracts - Topic 9000

Third party beneficiaries - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the principle of privity of contract (see paragraph 9).

Contracts - Topic 9006

Third party beneficiaries - Presumed intent to benefit employees of a party to a contract - A landlord agreed in a commercial lease to insure the tenant's premises for fire loss - Employees of the tenant negligently started a fire which destroyed the rented premises - The landlord sued the employees for damages - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the action and held that the employees were not entitled to the benefit of the landlord's agreement to insure - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that in the absence of evidence of the intent of the landlord, it could not be presumed that the landlord's promise to insure was intended to benefit the tenant's employees.

Cases Noticed:

Agnew Surpass Shoe Stores Ltd. v. Cummer Younge Investments Ltd., 4 N.R. 547; [1976] 2 S.C.R. 221, refd to. [para. 3].

Ross Southward Tire Ltd. v. Pyrotech Products Ltd. et al., 5 N.R. 541; [1976] 2 S.C.R. 35, refd to. [para. 3].

Smith et al. v. T. Eaton Company Ltd. et al., 15 N.R. 315; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 749, refd to. [para. 3].

Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd., [1962] A.C. 446; [1962] 1 All E.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 5 and 7].

Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Pickford & Black Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 41, refd to. [paras. 5 and 7].

Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861), 1 B.S. 393, refd to. [para. 7].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. and Selfridge and Co., [1915] A.C. 847 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 7].

New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd., [1975] A.C. 154, refd to. [para. 13].

Affréteurs Réunis Société Anonyme v. Leopold Walford (London) Limited, [1919] A.C. 801, refd to. [para. 14].

Vandepitte v. Preferred Accident Insurance Corporation of New York, [1933] A.C. 70, refd to. [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anson's Law of Contract (25th Ed.) (1979), page 411 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Arthur Moreira, Q.C., Alexander S. Beveridge and A. William Moreira, for the appellant;

David Miller, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by RITCHIE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ and McINTYRE, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on January 24, 1980

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by McINTYRE, J. on June 17, 1980.