Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131

JudgeThe Honourable Madam Justice Warren
CourtSupreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
Case DateNovember 22, 2017
JurisdictionBritish Columbia
Citations2017 BCSC 2131
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
9 practice notes
  • 1182054 B.C. Ltd. v. Penny,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • February 9, 2021
    ...that it would be unconscionable for the vendor to retain the deposit paid. See: Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131 at para. 61; and Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc., 2017 ONCA 282 at [36]        There is no pleading in the ANOCC that i......
  • Verigen v. Ensemble Travel Ltd.,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 4, 2021
    ...that applies in this context. The leading authorities setting out that test were conveniently summarised by Warren J. in Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131, as [15]      The purpose of the doctrine of frustration is to relieve a contracting party from its bargain by br......
  • Blackmore Management Inc. v. Carmanah Management Corporation,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • March 30, 2022
    ...which was undertaken by the contract”: Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2001 SCC 58 at para. 53; Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131 at para.18. It is common ground that the first step is met in this [60]        As to the second step, a......
  • Sachdeva v. Cheng, 2018 BCSC 1388
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 15, 2018
    ...to the plaintiffs and this was something beyond their control. [65]        Citing Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131 at para. 18, the Chengs say the defence of frustration has two components.  There must 1.       &......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • 1182054 B.C. Ltd. v. Penny,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • February 9, 2021
    ...that it would be unconscionable for the vendor to retain the deposit paid. See: Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131 at para. 61; and Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc., 2017 ONCA 282 at [36]        There is no pleading in the ANOCC that i......
  • Verigen v. Ensemble Travel Ltd.,
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 4, 2021
    ...that applies in this context. The leading authorities setting out that test were conveniently summarised by Warren J. in Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131, as [15]      The purpose of the doctrine of frustration is to relieve a contracting party from its bargain by br......
  • Blackmore Management Inc. v. Carmanah Management Corporation,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • March 30, 2022
    ...which was undertaken by the contract”: Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2001 SCC 58 at para. 53; Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131 at para.18. It is common ground that the first step is met in this [60]        As to the second step, a......
  • Sachdeva v. Cheng, 2018 BCSC 1388
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • August 15, 2018
    ...to the plaintiffs and this was something beyond their control. [65]        Citing Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131 at para. 18, the Chengs say the defence of frustration has two components.  There must 1.       &......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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