Hickey v. Paletta, 69 WWR (ns) 17

JudgeMartland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence and Dickson, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateJune 16, 1969
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations69 WWR (ns) 17;1969 CanLII 101 (SCC);6 DLR (3d) 384;6 DLR (3d) 257;[1969] SCR 865;1969 CanLII 23 (SCC);[1970] 1 CCC 1;(1974), 14 N.R. 1 (SCC);[1969] SCR 923

Hickey v. Paletta (1974), 14 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Hickey v. Paletta

Indexed As: Hickey v. Paletta

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence and Dickson, JJ.

October 31, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of an agreement for the sale of a house. On June 16, 1969 the buyer agreed to purchase the seller's house for $70,500.00. On the day before the closing date the buyer told the seller that, he the buyer, would not be in funds to close the sale on the closing date. On the closing date the seller did not tender the title documents. The seller attempted to find another buyer for his house and in June, 1970 the seller sold his house at a loss of $12,500. The seller commenced an action against the buyer for damages for breach of contract. The trial court awarded the seller damages of $13,249.00. The trial court rejected the buyer's defence that the seller failed to tender the title documents. The trial court stated that the buyer should not be allowed to take advantage of a situation which he created. The judgment of the trial court is set out below - see paragraphs 6 to 24.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed - see paragraphs 2 to 5.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal was affirmed - see paragraph 1.

Sale of Land - Topic 6244

Completion - Seller's duties - Tender of title documents - Waiver by buyer of seller's obligation to tender title documents - On the day before the closing date the buyer told the seller that he, the buyer, would not be in funds to close the sale - The seller did not tender the title documents on the closing date - The seller later commenced an action against the buyer for damages for breach of contract - The trial judge rejected the buyer's defence that the seller failed to tender the title documents - The trial judge stated that the buyer should not be allowed to take advantage of a situation which he created - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a damage award of $13,249.00 in favour of the seller.

Damages - Topic 6153

Contracts - Sale of land - Breach by buyer - Time for assessment of damages - A buyer refused to complete a contract for the sale of a house - The seller sold his house twelve months later at a loss of $12,500.00 - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed a damage award of $12,500.00 in favour of the seller on the basis that the seller mitigated his damages by using reasonable efforts to conclude a resale of the house.

Cases Noticed:

Watts v. Strezos, [1955] O.R. 615, dist. [para. 17].

McNiven v. Pigott, 31 O.L.R. 365, dist. [para. 17].

Consolidated Press Limited v. Gibson et al., [1933] O.R. 458, dist. [para. 17].

Davies v. Russell, [1970] 2 O.R. 699, folld. [para. 17].

Agricultural Loans v. Irwin, [1940] O.R. 489, folld. [para. 17].

New Zealand Shipping Company Limited v. Société des Ateliers et Chantiers de France, [1919] A.C. 1, folld. [para. 17].

Roberts v. Wyatt (1810), 2 Taunt. 268, 276, folld. [para. 18].

Tozer v. Berry, [1959] O.W.N. 399, refd to. [para. 22].

Dobson v. Winton and Robbins, [1959] S.C.R. 775, folld. [para. 22].

Counsel:

M.P. Stringer, for the appellant;

G.W. Cameron, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30 and 31, 1974. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered orally by MARTLAND, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Bingham v. R., 1970 CanLII 171 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Canada
    • October 6, 1970
    ...General for Alberta, Edmonton.   [1] [1968] S.C.R. 381, [1968] 3 C.C.C. 257, 3 C.R.N.S. 213, 68 D.L.R. (2d) 449. [2] [1969] S.C.R. 865, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 1, 8 C.R.N.S. 4, 6 D.L.R. [3] [1950] A.C. 458. ...
  • Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 SCR 418
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • May 25, 1995
    ...N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67; [1986] 5 W.W.R. 289; 2 R.F.L.(2d) 225; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 81]. Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 14 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. Leroux v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 220; 4 O.R.(3d) 609, refd to.......
  • Nutzenberger v. Mert, 2021 ONSC 36
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
    • January 5, 2021
    ...to disturb the conclusion of Hughes, J. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed (Paletta v. Hickey, [1974] S.C.R. vi, 14 N.R. 1). A somewhat similar situation came before Hughes, J., in Kiefert et al. v. Morrison (1975), 1975 CanLII 473 (ON SC), 11 O.R. (2d) 731, 67 D.L.R. (3......
  • Chu et al. v. Chen et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. Uned. 503
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia
    • November 6, 2002
    ...whether in all the circumstances the Court will exercise its equitable jurisdiction and enforce such a lien: Freeborn et al v. Goodman 6 D.L.R. (3d) 384 (S.C.C. 1969) at 409-410. [48] Here I say as the trier of fact that the irresistible inference on the whole of the evidence is that by the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Bingham v. R., 1970 CanLII 171 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of Canada
    • October 6, 1970
    ...General for Alberta, Edmonton.   [1] [1968] S.C.R. 381, [1968] 3 C.C.C. 257, 3 C.R.N.S. 213, 68 D.L.R. (2d) 449. [2] [1969] S.C.R. 865, [1970] 1 C.C.C. 1, 8 C.R.N.S. 4, 6 D.L.R. [3] [1950] A.C. 458. ...
  • Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 SCR 418
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • May 25, 1995
    ...N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67; [1986] 5 W.W.R. 289; 2 R.F.L.(2d) 225; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 81]. Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 14 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. Leroux v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 220; 4 O.R.(3d) 609, refd to.......
  • Nutzenberger v. Mert, 2021 ONSC 36
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario
    • January 5, 2021
    ...to disturb the conclusion of Hughes, J. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed (Paletta v. Hickey, [1974] S.C.R. vi, 14 N.R. 1). A somewhat similar situation came before Hughes, J., in Kiefert et al. v. Morrison (1975), 1975 CanLII 473 (ON SC), 11 O.R. (2d) 731, 67 D.L.R. (3......
  • Chu et al. v. Chen et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. Uned. 503
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Supreme Court of British Columbia
    • November 6, 2002
    ...whether in all the circumstances the Court will exercise its equitable jurisdiction and enforce such a lien: Freeborn et al v. Goodman 6 D.L.R. (3d) 384 (S.C.C. 1969) at 409-410. [48] Here I say as the trier of fact that the irresistible inference on the whole of the evidence is that by the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results