101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Harle, 2016 SKCA 66

• Judge: Caldwell, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: October 21, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2016 SKCA 66;(2016), 480 Sask.R. 85 (CA)

101090442 Sask. v. Harle (2016), 480 Sask.R. 85 (CA);

    669 W.A.C. 85

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.064

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

(CACV2669; 2016 SKCA 66)

Indexed As: 101090442 Saskatchewan Ltd. v. Harle

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Caldwell, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A.

May 12, 2016.

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 (i.e., the SKCA decision), 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 (trial judge), in a decision reported 466 Sask.R. 308, allowed the plaintiff's applications. The defendants appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the trial judge's rulings. The court set aside the trial judge's ruling that permitted the plaintiff purchaser to resile from its concession that damages ought to be assessed on the basis of the difference in land values. However, the court declined to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of his discretion to permit the plaintiff purchaser to resile from its position that the date of trial was the appropriate date for assessing damages. Further, the court declined to interfere with the trial judge's decision to permit the plaintiff purchaser to reopen the trial to adduce new evidence on the issue of damages, except to the extent it permitted the plaintiff to adduce evidence of a plan for the property. In accordance with the SKCA decision, any new submissions as to damages had to be confined to the two issues remitted to the trial judge, being the appropriate date for the assessment of damages and evidence of land value as at that date.

Courts - Topic 126

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Decisions binding on provincial courts - [See Courts - Topic 567.1 ].

Courts - Topic 567.1

Judges - Powers - Upon remittal by appeal court - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "... when this Court remits a matter to a trial court, it is not for the trial court to question this Court's decision; it is the duty of the trial court to give full effect to that decision, whatever the trial court's views may be as to the intrinsic wisdom of it. This is so because stare decisis requires a trial court to follow the law as interpreted by its coordinate appellate court. Therefore, when a matter is remitted for determination, the trial court must follow the directions of the appellate court in making that determination. Of course, the trial court may look to the appellate court's reasons and to the original trial decision to determine the scope of the matter remitted. But, to the extent the appellate court's reasons alter the trial court's findings and its initial decision, the appellate court's findings and decision must be followed" - See paragraph 21.

Courts - Topic 2191

Jurisdiction - Loss or termination of jurisdiction upon fulfilling function (functus officio) - Remittal orders - [See Courts - Topic 567.1 and Practice - Topic 4959 ].

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 (SKCA decision) 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 trial judge allowed the plaintiff to withdraw its trial concession that if damages were to be assessed, they should be based only on the increase in value of land, and to reopen the trial to lead new evidence as to damages - The defendants appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the trial judge's rulings - The court held that the trial judge was functus officio in the matter until the Court of Appeal remitted the matter back to him - In that remittance, the court circumscribed the scope of what he was allowed to consider (i.e., the appropriate date for the assessment of damages and evidence of land value as at that date), thereby delineating the scope of the trial judge's competence to hear the matter anew - The direction in the SKCA decision was clear and unambiguous - The trial judge had to assess damages based upon a difference in land value between the agreed-upon price and the value of the subject farmland as at a specific date - To do so, the trial judge had to determine the date upon which to assess damages and choose the expert assessment evidence adduced at trial upon which he would rely in his assessment of damages - See paragraphs 17 to 48.

Practice - Topic 4960

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

Counsel:

Jeff N. Grubb, Q.C., and Graham Purse, for the appellant;

Deron A. Kuski, Q.C., and T. Joshua Morrison, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 21, 2015, before Caldwell, Herauf and Whitmore, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Caldwell, J.A., on May 12, 2016.