Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Rural Municipality of Storthoaks, (1975) 5 N.R. 23 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1975), 5 N.R. 23 (SCC);1975 CanLII 156 (SCC);55 DLR (3d) 1;[1975] 4 WWR 591;[1976] 2 SCR 147;5 NR 23

Mobil Oil Can. Ltd. v. Storthoaks (1975), 5 N.R. 23 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Rural Municipality of Storthoaks

Indexed As: Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Rural Municipality of Storthoaks

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

April 22, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for the recovery of money paid under mistake of fact. The plaintiff, an oil producer, paid royalties of $31,163 to the defendant municipality by mistake. The defendant granted the plaintiff an oil lease. After the lease was surrendered and the plaintiff's obligation to pay royalties was terminated the plaintiff paid the $31,163 to the defendant. The defendant used the money for municipal purposes and refused to repay the money to the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The trial court stated that the payments were made voluntarily and could not be recovered.

On appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money paid to the defendant.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the defendant was obligated to repay the monies unless it could establish that it had materially changed its circumstances as a result of the receipt of the money. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the expenditure of the monies by the defendant did not constitute a material change in circumstances - see paragraphs 53 to 58.

Mistake - Topic 1676

Recovery of money paid under mistake - Mistake of fact - Defences - Material change in circumstances as a result of the receipt of the money - The plaintiff, an oil producer, paid royalties of $31,163 to the defendant municipality by mistake - The plain- tiff was granted an oil lease by the municipality - After termination of the oil lease and termination of the plaintiff's obligation to pay royalties the plaintiff paid $31,163 to the defendant - The defendant used the money for municipal purposes - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the $31,163 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the defendant did not materially change its circumstances as a result of the receipt of the money - See paragraphs 53 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Kelly v. Solari (1841), 9 M. & W. 54, folld. [para. 22].

Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation Limited v. Spalding Urban District Council, [1937] 2 K.B. 607, folld. [para. 26].

R.E. Jones Limited v. Waring and Gillow Limited, [1926] A.C. 670, folld. [para. 28].

Turvey v. Dentons (1923) Ltd., [1953] 1 Q.B. 218, folld. [para. 30].

Purity Dairy Ltd. v. Collinson (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 67, folld. [para. 32].

Rural Municipality of Garden River v. Montreuil, [1929] 2 D.L.R. 396, not folld. [para. 35].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Huber (1972), 23 D.L.R.(3d) 209, not folld. [para. 36].

Bank of Montreal v. The King (1907), 38 S.C.R. 258, dist. [para. 38].

Dominion Bank v. Union Bank of Canada (1908), 40 S.C.R. 366, folld. [para. 40].

Baylis v. Bishop of London, [1913] 1 Ch. 127, folld. [para. 42].

Sinclair v. Brougham, [1914] A.C. 398, folld. [para. 43].

Holt v. Markham, [1923] 1 K.B. 504, folld. [para. 44].

Morgan v. Ashcroft, [1938] 1 K.B. 49, folld. [para. 45].

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Limited, [1943] A.C. 32, folld. [para. 47].

Boissevain v. Weil, [1950] A.C. 327, folld. [para. 49].

Reading v. Attorney General, [1951] A.C. 507, folld. [para. 49].

U.S. v. National Park Bank of New York (1881), 6 F. 852, folld. [para. 50].

Deglman v. The Guaranty Trust Company of Canada, [1954] S.C.R. 725, folld. [para. 52].

Corporation of the County of Carleton v. Corporation of the City of Ottawa, [1965] S.C.R. 663, folld. [para. 52].

Larner v. London County Council, [1949] 2 K.B. 683, folld. [para. 62].

Counsel:

M.C. Shumiatcher, Q.C., for the appellant;

R.L. Barclay and M.J. Sychuk, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 7, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of Canada on April 22, 1975.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by MARTLAND, J.