101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Harle, 2015 SKQB 20

• Judge: Kraus, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 20, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKQB 20;(2015), 466 Sask.R. 308 (QB)

101090442 Sask. v. Harle (2015), 466 Sask.R. 308 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.056

101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Douglas John Harle and Colleen Karen Harle (defendants)

(2008 Q.B.G. No. 771; 2015 SKQB 20)

Indexed As: 101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Harle

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Kraus, J.

January 20, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff purchaser sued the defendant vendors for specific performance of a purchase and sale agreement respecting the vendors' farm.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 392 Sask.R. 178, allowed the action. The vendors appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 433 Sask.R. 62; 602 W.A.C. 62, held that the trial judge did not err in finding that there was an enforceable agreement and that the vendors breached that agreement; however, the trial judge erred in granting specific performance. The court remitted the matter to the trial judge to assess damages. Thereafter, the plaintiff purchaser applied for leave to withdraw its concession, or admission, made at trial that damages were too speculative to be assessed but if assessed should be based only on the increase in value of land. If leave was granted, the plaintiff sought further leave to re-open its case and lead evidence as to damages.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the plaintiff's applications.

Evidence - Topic 2118

Special modes of proof - Judicial admissions - Withdrawal or amendment of admission - [See Practice - Topic 4959 ].

Practice - Topic 4959

Admissions - Withdrawal or amendment of - When available - At trial, the plaintiff was granted specific performance of a purchase and sale agreement - The appeal court held that the trial judge erred in granting specific performance and remitted the matter to the trial judge to assess damages based on the evidence adduced at trial - Thereafter, the plaintiff applied for leave to withdraw its trial concession or admission that if damages were to be assessed, they should be based only on the increase in value of land - If leave was granted, the plaintiff sought further leave to re-open its case and lead evidence as to damages - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench granted leave to the plaintiff to withdraw its concession and to lead evidence as to damages - At trial, the plaintiff misconstrued the nature of its concession based on an error of law - The trial judgment was also wrong in accepting the plaintiff's concession, in awarding specific performance and in failing to consider damages as a remedy available to the plaintiff - There was clearly a triable issue as to damages which should be decided at trial.

Practice - Topic 4960

Admissions - Concession on issue in dispute - [See Practice - Topic 4959 ].

Cases Noticed:

Serra v. Serra (2009), 246 O.A.C. 37; 93 O.R.(3d) 161; 307 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2009 ONCA 105, refd to. [para. 7].

Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board (2010), 261 O.A.C. 108; 104 O.R.(3d) 784; 2010 ONCA 310, affd. [2012] 2 S.C.R. 675; 435 N.R. 41; 2012 SCC 51, refd to [para. 9].

Director of Child, Youth and Family Enhancement (Alta.) v. B.M. (2009), 460 A.R. 188; 462 W.A.C. 188; 2009 ABCA 258, refd to. [para. 16].

Cheema v. Cheema, [2001] B.C.T.C. 298; 89 B.C.L.R.(3d) 179; 2001 BCSC 298, refd to. [para. 16].

Spoor et al. v. Nicholls et al., [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 126; 90 B.C.L.R.(3d) 88; 2001 BCCA 426, refd to. [para. 16].

Raymond v. Raymond Estate (2011), 371 Sask.R. 260; 518 W.A.C. 260; 2011 SKCA 58, refd to. [para. 20].

Papp Estate v. Minister of National Revenue, [1964] S.C.R. 66, refd to. [para. 20].

Norlympia Seafoods Ltd. v. Dale (1983), 141 D.L.R.(3d) 733 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

D.A. Kuski and T.J. Morrison, for the plaintiff;

J.N. Grubb, Q.C., and G.E. Purse, for the defendants.

This application was heard before Kraus, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following judgement on January 20, 2015.