Alberta Agricultural Development Corp. v. Lefebvre, (1992) 124 A.R. 42 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 124 A.R. 42 (QBM)

Agricultural Dev. Corp. v. Lefebvre (1992), 124 A.R. 42 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation (plaintiff) v. Robert Antoine Lefebvre and Liliane Marianne Lefebvre (defendants)

(Action No. 9104-16318)

Indexed As: Alberta Agricultural Development Corp. v. Lefebvre

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Grande Prairie

Funduk, Master in Chambers

January 9, 1992.

Summary:

The defendants' loan from the Alberta Agricultural Development Corp. (A.A.D.C.) was secured by mortgage. The defendants were in financial trouble. The A.A.D.C. applied for summary judgment in a foreclos­ure action. The defendants claimed that the parties reached an agreement that the de­fendants would quit claim all the land to the A.A.D.C., which would then sell the home quarter back to the defendants.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queens's Bench granted summary judgment. There was no agreement. The Master granted an order nisi with directions for sale with a one day redemption period.

Contracts - Topic 8005

Statute of Frauds - Part performance - General - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a party alleg­ing an oral agreement could not support it with alleged acts of part performance - The Master stated that "[t]hat is looking at the wrong end of the horse" - Acts of part performance are neutral and must stand on their own - See paragraphs 47 to 55.

Practice - Topic 5705

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Requirement that question at issue be beyond doubt - A mortgagee applied for summary judgment in a foreclosure action - The mortgagors claimed an a­greement was reached with an officer of the mortgagee whereby the mortgagors would quit claim all the land to the mort­gagee, which would in turn sell the home quarter back to the mortgagors - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted summary judgment - The evidence was clear that there was no agreement - Additionally, the mortgagors had advance written notice that the officer lacked auth­ority to bind the mortgagee to any agree­ment.

Real Property - Topic 4205

Fixtures - What constitute - A 19 year old mobile home was situate on land for over 10 years and occupied as a home - There was a basement underneath and the wheels were removed - The mobile home was hooked up to water, power and sewage - There was skirting around it - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the mobile home was a fixture - See paragraphs 68 to 69.

Cases Noticed:

Toombs v. Mueller, [1974] 6 W.W.R. 577 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Eastial Developments Ltd. v. Whissell Enterprises Ltd. (1981), 25 A.R. 92 (C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

Colberg v. Braunberger's Estate (1978), 12 A.R. 183 (C.A.), consd. [para. 49].

Alberta Agricultural Development Corp. v. Pierog (1991), 120 A.R. 385; 8 W.A.C. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Counsel:

W.A. Stefura, for the plaintiff;

R.M. Lewis (Lewis, Clackson & Co.), for the defendants.

This application was heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Grande Prairie, who delivered the following judg­ment on January 9, 1992.