Taga Ku Development Corp. et al. v. Yukon et al., (1995) 61 B.C.A.C. 270 (YukCA)

• Judge: de Weerdt, Legg and Ryan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
• Case Date: May 24, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Yukon
• Citations: (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 270 (YukCA)

Taga Ku Dev. Corp. v. Yukon (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 270 (YukCA);

    100 W.A.C. 270

MLB headnote and full text

Taga Ku Development Corporation and Taga Ku Development Groups Inc. (plaintiff/respondents) v. Government of the Yukon and Commissioner of the Yukon Territory (defendants/appellants)

(Whitehorse Registry No. 94-YU297)

Indexed As: Taga Ku Development Corp. et al. v. Yukon et al.

Yukon Court of Appeal

de Weerdt, Legg and Ryan, JJ.A.

June 28, 1995.

Summary:

The plaintiff developers sued the govern­ment for breach of contract. The trial judge found for the developers. The government appealed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 8807

Appeals - Duty of appellate court regard­ing inferences and inferences from truthful evidence - The Yukon Court of Appeal stated that a court of appeal was not required to draw inferences which were different from those drawn by the trial judge unless the court of appeal was per­suaded to disagree with those inferences - See paragraph 40.

Waiver - Topic 46

Essential elements - Intention to relinquish - A construction contract with the govern­ment required the developer to build a hotel as part of a commercial project - The Yukon Court of Appeal affirmed that the government had a conscious intention to waive the hotel requirement.

Cases Noticed:

Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. and Fikowski v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490; 168 N.R. 381; 155 A.R. 321; 73 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 30].

Stein Estate v. Ship Kathy K, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 802; 6 N.R. 359; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 36].

Taylor v. Ankenman and Jaegli Enter­prises Ltd., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 4, refd to. [para. 36].

Goodman Estate v. Geffin, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 211, refd to. [para. 36].

LaPointe v. Chevrette, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 351; 133 N.R. 116; 25 Q.A.C. 33; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 27, refd to. [para. 36].

Dominion Trust Co. v. New York Life Insurance Co., [1919] A.C. 254 (B.C.P.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

Spracklin v. Knull (1951), 1 W.W.R.(N.S.) 413 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Paquin v. Lessard et al., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 665; 10 N.R. 620, refd to. [para. 38].

Sherman v. Monarch Chrome Furniture Co. (1959), 15 D.L.R.(2d) 6 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Lee v. Arthur (Rural Municipality) (1965), 52 W.W.R.(N.S.) 166 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Atley v. Popkum Waterslides Ltd. (1992), 10 B.C.A.C. 193; 21 W.A.C. 193; 64 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, agreed with [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Court of Appeal Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 7, sect. 9(3) [para. 37].

Court of Appeal Act, R.S.Y. 1986, c. 37, sect. 1 [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, The Conduct of An Appeal (1993), pp. 39 to 44 [para. 38].

Counsel:

Jack Giles, Q.C., Bruce L. Willis, Q.C., and Penelope Gawn, for the appellants;

Robert Sewell and H.W. Veenstra, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard in Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, on May 24, 1995, before de Weerdt, Legg and Ryan, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Legg, J.A., on June 28, 1995, in Vancouver, British Columbia.