741431 Alberta Ltd. v. Devon (Town), 2002 ABQB 870

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: August 23, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 870;(2002), 324 A.R. 201 (QB)

741431 Alta. Ltd. v. Devon (2002), 324 A.R. 201 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. OC.109

741431 Alberta Ltd. (applicant/defendant) v. The Town of Devon (respondent/plaintiff)

(Action No. 0003 15574; 2002 ABQB 870)

Indexed As: 741431 Alberta Ltd. v. Devon (Town)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

October 2, 2002.

Summary:

A town sold land to 741431 Alberta Ltd. The sale agreement set an August 12, 1999 deadline for construction to the "roof stage" or the town could repurchase the land for the purchase price. The town later extended the roof stage deadline to May 31, 2000. That deadline was not met. The town sought to repurchase the land. 741431 failed to execute a transfer. The town commenced an action and moved for summary judgment. The town's action was settled by 741431 endorsing a consent judgment in the town's favour and providing a transfer of the property and the town agreeing not to use the consent judgment and transfer unless 741431 failed to reach the roof stage by July 1, 2001. There was no construction by July 1, 2001. 741431 applied for an order restraining the town from registering the land transfer and entering the consent judgment. It also sought, inter alia, an order allowing it a further year to achieve the roof stage. 741431's position was based on estoppel, relief from forfeiture, and specific performance of an amended settlement agreement.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Contracts - Topic 3944

Performance or breach - Relief from forfeiture - When available - A town sold land to 741431 - The sale agreement set an August 12, 1999 deadline for construction to the "roof stage" or the town could repurchase the land - The town later extended the roof stage deadline to May 31, 2000 - That deadline was not met - The town sought to repurchase the land - 741431 failed to execute a transfer - The town commenced an action, which was settled by 741431 endorsing a consent judgment in the town's favour and providing a transfer of the property and the town agreeing not to use the consent judgment and transfer unless 741431 failed to reach the roof stage by July 1, 2001 - There was no construction by July 1, 2001 - 741431 applied for, inter alia, an order restraining the town from registering the land transfer and entering the consent judgment - 741431 argued that it was an appropriate case for relief from forfeiture - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The court considered the prejudice that relief from forfeiture would cause to the town, including to the town's ability to control its planning process - See paragraphs 129 to 136.

Estoppel - Topic 9

General principles - Estoppel as shield, not sword - A town sold land to 741431 - The sale agreement set an August 12, 1999 deadline for construction to the "roof stage" or the town could repurchase the land - The town later extended the roof stage deadline to May 31, 2000 - That deadline was not met - The town sought to repurchase the land - 741431 failed to execute a transfer - The town commenced an action, which was settled by 741431 endorsing a consent judgment in the town's favour and providing a transfer of the property and the town agreeing not to use the consent judgment and transfer unless 741431 failed to reach the roof stage by July 1, 2001 - There was no construction by July 1, 2001 - 741431 applied for an order restraining the town from registering the land transfer and entering the consent judgment - It also sought an order allowing it a further year to achieve the roof stage - 741431 argued estoppel, claiming that it had relied on the town's forbearance as to the roof stage deadline - Much of 741431's estoppel claim rested on representations by the town's Manager of Economic Development (Bertrand) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the estoppel argument - The town made no representations about waiving the roof stage deadline after the consent judgment and transfer - 741431 knew the town's position and that Bertrand did not have authority to bind the town - Estoppel was also a shield, not a sword - It did not involve the fabrication of a new contract between the parties by the court - See paragraphs 95 to 118.

Estoppel - Topic 1391

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - Statements by unauthorized officials - [See Estoppel - Topic 9 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1393

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - Knowledge by person raising estoppel - [See Estoppel - Topic 9 ].

Cases Noticed:

Maritime Life Assurance Co. v. Dyjack et al., [1984] A.J. No. 368 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 84, footnote 1].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 54 C.P.R.(3d) 114, refd to. [para. 86, footnote 2].

Mount Sinai Hospital Center v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 2; 271 N.R. 104, refd to. [para. 93, footnote 3].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50; 125 N.R. 294; 47 O.A.C. 333; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 652; 3 C.C.L.I.(2d) 186; 50 C.P.C.(2d) 213, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 5].

Marchischuk v. Dominion Industrial Supplies Ltd. et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 61; 125 N.R. 306; 73 Man.R.(2d) 271; 3 W.A.C. 271; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 670; 30 M.V.R.(2d) 102; [1991] 4 W.W.R. 673; 50 C.P.C.(2d) 231; 4 C.C.L.I.(2d) 173, refd to. [para. 96, footnote 6].

Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., [1947] K.B. 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 7].

Harper v. Cameron (1892), 2 B.C.R. 365; 1893 CarswellBC 17 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 97, footnote 8].

D'Andrea v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. (1995), 164 A.R. 31; 28 C.C.L.I.(2d) 63 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 98, footnote 9].

Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd. and Fikowski v. Maritime Life Assurance Co., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 490; 168 N.R. 381; 155 A.R. 321; 73 W.A.C. 321; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 37; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 296; 115 D.L.R.(4th) 578; 23 C.C.L.I.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 98, footnote 10].

Martinez v. Hogeweide et al. (1998), 209 A.R. 388; 160 W.A.C. 388; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 757 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98, footnote 11].

Kapki v. Palacz (1999), 228 A.R. 373; 188 W.A.C. 373 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98, footnote 12].

Hohnstein v. Gunther et al. (2000), 274 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), 98, footnote 13].

Johnston v. Carlos (2002), 317 A.R. 155; 284 W.A.C. 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 15].

Canada and Dominion Sugar Co. v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd., [1946] 3 W.W.R. 759 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 16].

Berendsen v. Ontario, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 849; 275 N.R. 175; 150 O.A.C. 270, reving. [1999] O.J. No. 1018 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 17].

Wilson v. Cristall, [1922] 1 W.W.R. 153 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 109, footnote 18].

Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. et al. v. Paddon-Hughes Development Co. Ltd. et al., [1970] S.C.R. 932; 12 D.L.R.(3d) 247; 74 W.W.R.(N.S.) 356, refd to. [para. 113, footnote 21].

Willmott v. Barber (1880), 15 Ch. D. 96 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 22].

Barrett et al. v. Krebs et al. (1995), 164 A.R. 218 (Q.B.), affd. (1995), 174 A.R. 59; 102 W.A.C. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116, footnote 24].

Barrett et al. v. Krebs et al. (1996), 181 A.R. 132; 116 W.A.C. 132 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 116, footnote 24].

Maxwell Taylor's Restaurants Inc. et al. v. Carcasole et al. (1990), 104 A.R. 87; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 376 (Q.B.), affd. (1990), 108 A.R. 105; 75 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 121, footnote 26].

Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415; 197 N.R. 379; 91 O.A.C. 379; 136 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 3 R.P.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 123, footnote 27].

White Room Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (1998), 216 A.R. 44; 175 W.A.C. 44 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124, footnote 28].

Tymo et al. v. Wild Rose Properties Ltd. (1983), 43 A.R. 54 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 29].

Edmonton (City) v. A. & M. Developments Ltd. (1980), 17 R.P.R. 304; 1980 CarswellAlta 211 (Q.B.), affd. (1981), 25 R.P.R. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 129, footnote 30].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anson, W.R., Principles of the English Law of Contract and of Agency in Relation to Contract (21st Ed. 1959), p. 23 [para. 112, footnote 20].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 134 [para. 115, footnote 23]; 836 [para. 120, footnote 25].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Contracts (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 144 to 147 [para. 111, footnote 19]; 147, 148, 149 [para. 99, footnote 14]; paras. 199 to 202 [para. 111, footnote 19]; 203, 204 [para. 99, footnote 14].

Counsel:

Sigurd Delblanc (Bryan and Company), for the applicant/defendant;

Rod J. Wasylyshyn (Ogilvie LLP), for the respondent/plaintiff.

This application was heard on August 23, 2002, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 2, 2002.