410675 Alberta Ltd. v. Trail South Developments Inc. et al., (2001) 293 A.R. 181 (CA)

• Judge: McClung, O'Leary and Russell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 03, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 293 A.R. 181 (CA);2001 ABCA 274

410675 Alta. Ltd. v. Trail South Dev. (2001), 293 A.R. 181 (CA);

    257 W.A.C. 181

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. NO.009

410675 Alberta Ltd. (appellant/plaintiff) v. Trail South Developments Inc. (respondent/defendant)

Trail South Developments Inc. (respondent/plaintiff by counterclaim/defendant) v. 410675 Alberta Ltd., Abbey Lane Homes Ltd. and B & R Development Corporation, operating under the trade name of "Abbey Lane Homes" (appellants/defendants by counterclaim/plaintiff)

(0103-0221-AC; 2001 ABCA 274)

Indexed As: 410675 Alberta Ltd. v. Trail South Developments Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

McClung, O'Leary and Russell, JJ.A.

October 3, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant Trail South for the purchase of land. The plaintiff placed a caveat on the land. Trail South applied under s. 139(1) of the Land Titles Act to discharge the caveat (first action). The application was denied. The plaintiff sued Trail South et al. for specific performance of the agreement and, alternatively, damages (second action). Trail South applied for summary judgment on the specific performance claim and, as consequential relief, discharge of the caveat.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2001] A.R. Uned. 182, granted the relief sought by Trail South. The plaintiff appealed, alleging, inter alia, that the chambers judge erred in (i) holding that Trail South's motion in the second action to discharge the caveat was not barred by res judicata or the principle precluding successive applications for the same interlocutory relief; and (ii) in holding that damages would be an adequate remedy and consequently dismissing the claim for specific performance and ordering discharge of the caveat.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Estoppel - Topic 380

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters in issue - The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant Trail South for the purchase of land - The plaintiff placed a caveat on the land - Trail South applied under s. 139(1) of the Land Titles Act to discharge the caveat but was unsuccessful (first action) - The plaintiff sued Trail South for specific performance and, alternatively, damages (second action) - Trail South was granted summary judgment on the specific performance claim and, as consequential relief, discharge of the caveat - The plaintiff appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the same issue was not decided in the two actions - Thus, Trail South's motion in the second action to discharge the caveat was not barred by res judicata or the principle precluding successive applications for the same interlocutory relief - See paragraphs 10 to 14.

Estoppel - Topic 382

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - In interlocutory proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings (incl. validity of statutes) - [See Estoppel - Topic 380 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 8551

Remedies of purchaser - Specific performance - When available - The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant Trail South for the purchase of land - The plaintiff sued Trail South for specific performance of the agreement and, alternatively, damages - Trail South was granted summary judgment on the specific performance claim - The plaintiff appealed, alleging that the chambers judge erred in holding that damages would be an adequate remedy - It claimed, inter alia, a loss of reputation which could not be quantified in damages - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that as the plaintiff never intended to have any role in marketing the property, its reputation could not be adversely impacted by the loss of a chance by related companies to market the property - See paragraphs 16 to 18.

Sale of Land - Topic 8551

Remedies of purchaser - Specific performance - When available - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff's potential inability to collect damages from a defendant was not an adequate basis for specific performance - The court stated that such an argument confused the remedy of specific performance with interlocutory injunctive relief or prejudgment execution -See paragraph 20.

Cases Noticed:

Acquest/Alberta Mining Inc. v. Barry Developments Inc. (1999), 241 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Pocklington Foods Inc. v. Alberta (Provincial Treasurer) (1995), 165 A.R. 155; 89 W.A.C. 155; 28 Alta. L.R.(3d) 96 (C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

QC Data Petroleum Services Ltd. v. International Datashare Corp. (2000), 261 A.R. 155; 225 W.A.C. 155 (C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Lange, D.J., The Doctrine of Res Judicata in Canada (2000), pp. 23 [para. 12]; 363 [para. 14].

Counsel:

D.T. Parkatti, for the appellants;

W.J. Kenny, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard and decided on October 3, 2001, by McClung, O'Leary and Russell, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal filed the following memorandum of judgment on October 26, 2001.