What was there said by Moore J. must be taken in the context of the issue and facts before him. The issue before Moore J. was whether a royalty agreement between the parties created an interest in the lands. That is clear from p. 74, where His Lordship states: “In this case the plaintiff contends that the reasoning of Laskin J. in the minority judgment [Sask. Minerals v. Keyes, 1971 CanLII 183 (SCC),  S.C.R. 703,  2 W.W.R. 108, 23 D.L.R. (3d) 573] is valid and that the parties’ intention governs. It is argued that the royalty is being paid in return for the use of land and can be characterized as in the nature of ‘rent’ and thus is an interest in land. It is suggested that cl. (3) of the royalty agreement overrides cl. (1) in that it clearly indicates that it was intended that the mineral interest should be subject to the plaintiffs’ interest at all times and accordingly must be construed as intending to create an interest in land.”
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.