Aber Resources Ltd. v. Winspear Resources Ltd., [2000] B.C.T.C. 386 (SC)

• Judge: Shaw, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: [2000] B.C.T.C. 386 (SC);2000 BCSC 463

Aber Resources v. Winspear Resources, [2000] B.C.T.C. 386 (SC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.027

Aber Resources Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Winspear Resources Ltd. (defendant)

(C991653; 2000 BCSC 463)

Indexed As: Aber Resources Ltd. v. Winspear Resources Ltd.

British Columbia Supreme Court

Vancouver

Shaw, J.

April 10, 2000.

Summary:

The parties were participants in a joint venture to exploit a diamond property. The joint venture agreement provided for periodic projects to be developed and carried out. Each party could elect to provide its share of the funding of the exploration programs in accordance with the party's percentage interest in the venture. If a party elected not to participate in the funding of a program, then the other party could provide 100 percent of the funds. Should this occur, the percentage interest of each party would change in accordance with the overall percentage by each party to the exploration costs. Prior to the 1999 program, the defendant held a 67.76 percent interest in the property and the plaintiff held a 32.24 percent interest. Over the plaintiff's objection and despite the plaintiff tendering its share of the funding for the 1999 program, the defendant fully funded the 1999 program. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it had the right to fund its proportionate share of the 1999 exploration budget. The plaintiff also sought consequential relief. The plaintiff sought summary judgment under rule 18A.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's claim based on unjust enrichment was suitable for determination under rule 18A. The court assumed, without deciding, that the plaintiff failed to give notice of its intention to contribute to the 1999 program, but held that the defendant itself failed to give timely notice of its own intention to contribute. The court held that it would be unconscionable to allow the defendant to benefit from the plaintiff's failure when the defendant committed the same error. The court granted the plaintiff relief based on unjust enrichment. As a remedy, the court granted a constructive trust, provided that the plaintiff contribute its share of the 1999 exploration costs.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - What constitutes - See paragraphs 53 to 63.

Restitution - Topic 123

Unjust enrichment - Remedies - Constructive trust - See paragraphs 64 to 70.

Cases Noticed:

Becker v. Pettkus, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 834; 34 N.R. 384; 19 R.F.L.(2d) 165; 117 D.L.R.(3d) 257; 8 E.T.R. 143, refd to. [para. 54].

Sorochan v. Sorochan, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38; 69 N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67; [1986] 5 W.W.R. 289; 2 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 29 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 54].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 621; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 48 E.T.R. 1; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 329; [1993] 3 W.W.R. 337, refd to. [para. 54].

International Corona Resources Ltd. v. LAC Minerals Ltd., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 574; 101 N.R. 239; 36 O.A.C. 57; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 14; 35 E.T.R. 1; 44 B.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 54].

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Hunter Engineering Co. and Allis-Chalmers Canada Ltd. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426; 92 N.R. 1; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 54].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 54].

Atlas Cabinets and Furniture Ltd. et al. v. National Trust Co. (1990), 68 D.L.R.(4th) 161 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

United Canso Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Washoe Northern Inc. et al. (1991), 121 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

Luscar Ltd. and Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. v. Pembina Resources Ltd. (1994), 162 A.R. 35; 83 W.A.C. 35 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1995), 193 N.R. 398; 184 A.R. 159; 122 W.A.C. 159 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Knutson v. Bourkes Syndicate, [1941] S.C.R. 419, refd to. [para. 61].

Counsel:

Howard Shapray, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Robert G. Ward and David M. Towill, for the defendant.

This action was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on February 28 and 29, 2000, and March 1 and 2, 2000, before Shaw, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 10, 2000.

Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.