Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 292
could be processed outside the Yukon Territory. The Defendant would benefit politically because it
would be able to claim credit for steps toward economic development in the Yukon Territory.
Additionally, with a facility to process timber, more timber harvesting could occur and the
Government would receive millions of dollars in stumpage royalties.
[1108] Further, the Defendant argues that no statement from a Minister alone was sufficient to give
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
rise to a contract. In this regard, she argues that the alleged contract relates to an interest in land and
accordingly, must be reduced to writing, pursuant to section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, 1677 (Eng.),
29 Car 2, c. 3, as follows:
No action shall be brought ... upon any contract of sale of lands ... or
any interest in or concerning them ... unless the Agreement upon
which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note
thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged
therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully
authorized.
[1109] The Plaintiffs’ response to this argument is that the Statute of Frauds cannot operate to
defeat a partially performed oral contract. In this regard, the Plaintiffs rely on the decision in Hill v.
Nova Scotia (Attorney General), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 69 where the Supreme Court of Canada
recognized the equitable doctrine of part performance. At para. 8, the Court said the following:
The province promised Mr. Hill access to the highway. It complied
with and carried out that promise by building and maintaining for 27
years ramps giving access to the highway from Mr. Hill's land.
Accordingly, Mr. Hill acquired what could be called an "equitable
permission" (or interest) to enter upon and cross the highway. It is
true that s. 21(1)(a) of the Public Highways Act, R.S.N.S. 1954, c.
235, requires that such permission be in writing and it may well be
that this requirement was satisfied in this case. However assuming it
was not, the writing requirement is merely a reflection of the Statute
of Frauds, whose purpose is to prevent "many fraudulent practices,