Hyperlawhypertext legal database Guyer Oil Co. Ltd. et al. v. Fulton et al. [1977] 2 SCR 791

← Cases

Guyer Oil Co. Ltd. et al. v. Fulton et al.

[1977] 2 SCR 791 Court SCC Decision date 1977-06-01 English

PartiesGuyer Oil Company, Ltd., Golden Eagle Oil and Gas Limited and Husky Oil (Alberta) Ltd. (Plaintiffs) Appellants·John M. Fulton and Gladstone Petroleum Ltd. (Defendants) Respondents

Counsel (4)
W.M. Elliott, Q.C., and M.A. Gerwing, for the plaintiffs, appellants.
E.J. Moss, Q.C., and S. Cameron, for the defendants, respondents.
Solicitors for the plaintiffs, appellants: MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman, Regina.
Solicitors for the defendants, respondents: Balfour, Moss, Milliken, Laschuk, Kyle, Vancisse & Cameron, Regina.

Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Ritchie, Roland Almon; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from Saskatchewan

Subjects Mines and minerals

Contents

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We do not need to hear you, Mr. Moss and Mr. Cameron. Apart from the issue of the admissibility of the evidence of Bilida offered in rebuttal, the concurrent findings of fact with which we would not interfere, do not give rise to liability on the part of the respondents under the principles of law invoked by the appellant. As to the proffered Bilida evidence, we are of the opinion that, in the circumstances of this case, the trial
[Page 792]
judge did not err in excluding it when the appellant did not establish a basis in the cross‑examination of John Fulton for adducing it in rebuttal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment accordingly.
Solicitors for the plaintiffs, appellants: MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman, Regina.
Solicitors for the defendants, respondents: Balfour, Moss, Milliken, Laschuk, Kyle, Vancisse & Cameron, Regina.

Footnotes

  1. [1] [1976] 5 W.W.R. 356.