Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (Town), (1970) 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474 (SCC)

JudgeRitchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon, and Laskin, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 15, 1968
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474 (SCC);17 DLR (3d) 1;2 NSR (2d) 474;[1971] SCR 577;1970 CanLII 196 (SCC);17 DLR (3d) 1

Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Silver's Garage Limited v. Town of Bridgewater

Indexed As: Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (Town)

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon, and Laskin, JJ.

December 21, 1970.

Summary:

Supreme Court of Canada, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and affirmed the trial judge's dismissal of the plaintiff's action for the price of goods sold and delivered. The goods consisted of sidewalk snow removal equipment which was delivered on a "proposal" basis on January 15, 1968 to the Town of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. Following January 15, 1968, the Town of Bridgewater intended to test the equipment along with the equipment of other suppliers in a heavy snowfall. The winter passed without a heavy snowfall and the goods were returned at the direction of the Town's council on May 15, 1968. The trial judge considered the answers of the jury in favour of the plaintiff as not supportable by the evidence and directed that the plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that no agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the Town and held further that in the circumstances that a resolution of the Town's council was necessary for the Town of Bridgewater to become liable in contract for the purchase price of the goods. The Supreme Court of Canada added that the equitable doctrine of acquiescence is founded upon there having been a mistake of fact and that the doctrine did not apply to the facts in this action.

Laskin, J., dissenting, with Hall, J., concurring, would have allowed the appeal and would have directed judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $5,700. for the price of goods sold and delivered. Laskin, J. stated that the use and retention of the equipment by the Town of Bridgewater constituted an assent to the seller's "proposal" for the sale of the equipment. Laskin, J. stated that in the absence of any imperative statutory limitation that the Town of Bridgewater was liable under ordinary principles of contract and that the Town of Bridgewater in this case is in no different position than would be an individual or a private business corporation.

Municipal Law - Topic 2525

Liability of municipality in contract - Authority required - Resolution of council of municipality - Supreme Court of Canada held that a resolution of the Council of a Nova Scotia town was necessary for the town to be liable to pay the purchase price of snow removal equipment.

Practice - Topic 5182

Jury trial - Verdicts - Setting aside jury verdict - Jury findings held to be perverse - Supreme Court of Canada affirmed removal of the case from the jury by the trial judge who directed the judgment.

Sale of Goods - Topic 503

Re contract - What constitutes - Whether town agreed to purchase sidewalk snow removal equipment which was kept and used by the town from January 15, 1968 to May 15, 1968 - Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of an action against the town for the price of goods sold and delivered.

Cases Noticed:

Waterous Engineering Works v. The Corporation of the Town of Palmerston, 31 S.C.R. 449, folld.

Lawford v. The Billericay Rural District Council, [1903] 1 K.B. 772, folld.

East Middlesex District High School Board v. London Board of Education, 49 D.L.R.(2d) 586, folld.

Bernardin v. Municipality of North Dufferin (1891), 19 S.C.R. 581, folld.

Toronto Electric Light Company v. The City of Toronto, 33 O.L.R. 268, folld.

Willmott v. Barber (1880), 15 Ch. D. 96, folld.

Canadian Superior Oil Limited et al. v. The Paddon-Hughes Development Company Limited, 12 D.L.R.(2d) 247, folld.

Sohio Petroleum Company et al v. Weyburn Security Company Limited, S.C.C. unreported, folld.

Eastern Securities Company v. City of Sydney (1923), 4 D.L.R. 717, folld.

John Mackay and Company v. Toronto, [1920] A.C. 208, folld.

Statutes Noticed:

Sale of Goods Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 274, sect. 6(1), sect. 20, rule 4.

Towns Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 309, sect. 3(2), sect. 19(2), sect. 27(2), sect. 112, sect. 171.

Rules of Court, Order 34, rule 32.

Counsel:

H.F. Jackson, Q.C., for the appellant;

D.R. Chipman, Q.C., for the respondent.

Spence, J. and Pigeon, J. concurred with Ritchie, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1006 practice notes
  • Dunmore v. Ont. (A.G.), 2001 SCC 94
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 19, 2001
    ...the law and equal benefit of the law without discrimination as guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter ? 3. If the answer to any part of questions 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is the limitation nevertheless justified under s. 1 of the Charter ? VI - Analysis A. Freedom of Association 1) Nature ......
  • R. v. Keegstra, (1990) 117 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 13, 1990
    ...2(b) of the Charter ? 2. Do ss. 319(2) and 319(3) of the Criminal Code breach s. 11(d) of the Charter ? 3. If the answer to either questions 1 or 2 is affirmative, can the infringements be justified under s. 1 of the Charter ? [165] The following constitutional questions stated by Dickson, ......
  • Dunmore v. Ont. (A.G.), (2001) 154 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 19, 2001
    ...the law and equal benefit of the law without discrimination as guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter ? 3. If the answer to any part of questions 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is the limitation nevertheless justified under s. 1 of the Charter ? VI - Analysis A. Freedom of Association 1) Nature ......
  • R. v. Pharmaceutical Soc., (1992) 114 N.S.R.(2d) 91 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • July 9, 1992
    ...Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34), inconsistent with s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? 3. If the answer to questions 1 or 2 is yes, is the infringement nevertheless justified under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ? [13] Given the structure of the arguments ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
892 cases
  • D.M. v. The Children__s Aid Society of Ottawa,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • December 20, 2021
    ...as the court considers appropriate. Access: where child removed from person in charge 105 (1) Where an order is made under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection 101 (1) removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court......
  • Dunmore v. Ont. (A.G.), 2001 SCC 94
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 19, 2001
    ...the law and equal benefit of the law without discrimination as guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter ? 3. If the answer to any part of questions 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is the limitation nevertheless justified under s. 1 of the Charter ? VI - Analysis A. Freedom of Association 1) Nature ......
  • R. v. Keegstra, (1990) 117 N.R. 1 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 13, 1990
    ...2(b) of the Charter ? 2. Do ss. 319(2) and 319(3) of the Criminal Code breach s. 11(d) of the Charter ? 3. If the answer to either questions 1 or 2 is affirmative, can the infringements be justified under s. 1 of the Charter ? [165] The following constitutional questions stated by Dickson, ......
  • Dunmore v. Ont. (A.G.), (2001) 154 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • February 19, 2001
    ...the law and equal benefit of the law without discrimination as guaranteed by s. 15 of the Charter ? 3. If the answer to any part of questions 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is the limitation nevertheless justified under s. 1 of the Charter ? VI - Analysis A. Freedom of Association 1) Nature ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 firm's commentaries
  • Environment @ Gowlings: October 6, 2009
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 7, 2009
    ...measuring devices, and mercury switches) and Phase 3 (all remaining MHSW as defined in the MHSW Regulation but not captured by Phases 1 or 2). If approved by the Minister, the revised plan is expected to enter into force on July 1, Further information is available on the EBR Registry. Amend......
  • Ontario's Chief Medical Officer Of Health Mandates COVID-19 Vaccination Policies For High-Risk Settings
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 7, 2021
    ...Covered Organizations may decide to remove Option 3 and instead require all Affected Individuals to provide the evidence required by Option 1 or 2. If the Covered Organization elects to do so, it must make a COVID Education Session available to all Affected Each Covered Organization's Vacci......
  • Ontario's Chief Medical Officer Of Health Mandates COVID-19 Vaccination Policies For High-Risk Settings
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • September 7, 2021
    ...Covered Organizations may decide to remove Option 3 and instead require all Affected Individuals to provide the evidence required by Option 1 or 2. If the Covered Organization elects to do so, it must make a COVID Education Session available to all Affected Each Covered Organization's Vacci......
  • Supreme Court Of Canada Finds Federal Act On Greenhouse Gas Pricing Constitutional
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 5, 2021
    ...GGPPA pricing mechanism does not automatically apply in all provinces and territories. A province or territory will only be subject to Part 1 or 2 of the GGPPA if the Governor in Council determines that a province's GHG pricing mechanism does not meet the minimum federal Reference Cases fro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 books & journal articles
  • Mental Health Act
    • Canada
    • Annotated Ontario Mental Health Statutes - Fifth edition
    • June 28, 2022
    ...the Act; they must take other measures that, functionally, may be diicult to achieve within the 72 hours. That said, a deiciency in the Form 1 or 2 may impact a review of the patient’s subsequent challenge to a Form 3. The initial committal may be challenged as a violation of Charter rights......
  • Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Annotated Ontario Mental Health Statutes: Fourth Edition
    • June 15, 2007
    ...paragraph or the same paragraph exists; or (b) although such other person exists, the other person is not a person described in paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (1) and would not object to the person who is present or has otherwise been contacted making the decision. 2004, c. 3, Sched. A, s. ......
  • Forensic Biology and DNA
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Lawyer’s Guide to the Forensic Sciences
    • June 23, 2016
    ...the original extraction extract (usually about 15 to 25 µl), how much of that volume was sacrificed for RT-qPCR quantitation (usually about 1 or 2 µl), and how much DNA was obtained in that sacrificed subsample. From that estimate, the total amount of DNA is calculated for the remaining ext......
  • Appendix 4: Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Guide to the Ontario Personal Health Information Protection Act. A Practical Guide for Health Care Providers
    • June 17, 2005
    ...paragraph or the same paragraph exists; or (b) although such other person exists, the other person is not a person described in paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (1) and would not object to the Appendix 4: Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 695 person who is present or has otherw......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1
    • Canada
    • Ontario Acts
    • Invalid date
    ...and (c) still resides in that person’s home. Access: where child removed from person in charge 105 (1) Where an order is made under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection 101 (1) removing a child from the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part, the court ......
  • Climate Change Mitigation and Low-carbon Economy Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 7
    • Canada
    • Ontario Acts
    • Invalid date
    ...the proceedings are based first came to the knowledge of the Director. 4. Any other matter pertaining to the matters referred to in paragraph 1 or 2. 5. Such other matters as may be Proof of record (2) Any record made under this Act that purports to be signed by any of the following persons......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT