Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources


ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Donate law books! / Conditions of Use
(*) = Guide

Estoppel - Estoppel by Representation

. Fram Elgin Mills 90 Inc. v. Romandale Farms Limited

In Fram Elgin Mills 90 Inc. v. Romandale Farms Limited (Ont CA, 2021) the Court of Appeal set out the doctrine of estoppel by representation:
(1)Governing Legal Principles

[134] In Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. v. Paddon-Hughes Development Co., 1970 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1970] S.C.R. 932, at pp. 939-40, the Supreme Court stated that the essential factors giving rise to estoppel by representation are:
(1) a representation or conduct amounting to a representation intended to induce a course of conduct on the part of the person to whom the representation is made;

(2) an act or omission resulting from the representation, whether actual or by conduct, by the person to whom the representation is made; and

(3) detriment to such person as a consequence of the act or omission.
[135] More recently in Ryan v. Moore, at para. 5, the Supreme Court referred to its much earlier decision in Page v. Austin (1884), 1884 CanLII 6 (SCC), 10 S.C.R. 132, at para. 164, to describe the doctrine of estoppel by representation as follows:
Estoppel by representation requires a positive representation made by the party whom it is sought to bind, with the intention that it shall be acted on by the party with whom he or she is dealing, the latter having so acted upon it as to make it inequitable that the party making the representation should be permitted to dispute its truth, or do anything inconsistent with it.


The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.