Barrie v. Villeneuve Sand & Gravel Alberta Ltd., (1999) 252 A.R. 324 (QB)

• Judge: Johnstone, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 28, 1999
• Citations: (1999), 252 A.R. 324 (QB)

Barrie v. Villeneuve Sand & Gravel (1999), 252 A.R. 324 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. NO.024

Dale R. Barrie and Deborah L. Barrie (applicants) v. Villeneuve Sand & Gravel Alberta Ltd. (respondent)

(Action No. 9903-09634)

Indexed As: Barrie v. Villeneuve Sand & Gravel Alberta Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Johnstone, J.

October 28, 1999.

Summary:

The Barries sought an order under s. 139(1) of the Land Titles Act to have Villeneuve Sand & Gravel show cause why a caveat it had filed against the Barries' land should not be discharged.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported [1999] A.R. Uned. 465, ordered that the caveat be dis­charged. The Master refused to stay the order pending appeal. Villeneuve appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal and awarded the Barries costs of the appeal on a solicitor and his own client basis.

Real Property - Topic 7930

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Caveats - Discharge - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the test to deter­mine whether a caveat should be dis­charged under s. 139(1) of the Land Titles Act - The court stated that "[t]he proper law in Alberta is that the caveator must show cause why its caveat should not be discharged. The 'clearly and beyond all doubt' test is too stringent, and implies that there is a burden on the applicant under s. 139 to demonstrate that the caveat should be discharged. It improperly shifts the burden ... although the burden rests with the caveator, it need only show a prima facie claim to an interest in land - that there is a bona fide question to be tried, or one that cannot be determined by affidavit evidence alone." - See paragraphs 8 to 15.

Real Property - Topic 7930

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Caveats - Discharge - The Barries sought an order under s. 139(1) of the Land Titles Act to have Villeneuve Sand & Gravel show cause why a caveat it had filed against the Barries' land claiming a profit à prendre (interest in sand and gravel rights) should not be discharged - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Villeneuve failed to satisfy the onus of proving a prima facie claim to a caveatable interest in the lands - There was no written agreement as required by s. 4 of the Stat­ute of Frauds to claim an interest in land - It was unlikely that there was an oral agreement of sufficient certainty to be enforceable - There were no acts of part performance of the alleged oral agreement - The alleged oral agreement (parole evi­dence) was inadmissible as it contradicted the written agreement by which the Barries purchased the land - See paragraphs 15 to 30.

Real Property - Topic 7938

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Caveats - Evidence - [See second Real Property - Topic 7930 ].

Cases Noticed:

Assaly (Thomas C.) Corp. v. Alberta In­dustrial Developments Ltd. (1982), 41 A.R. 436 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Whitemud Estates Corp. v. Carrington Properties Ltd. (1991), 113 A.R. 177 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

Wark Caveat, Re (1909), 2 Sask. L.R. 431 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Top Notch Ltd. v. Crystalaire Holdings Inc. (1995), 177 A.R. 306 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

Texas Industries Ltd. v. Northwestern Funding Corp. (1977), 8 A.R. 87; 4 Alta. L.R.(2d) 277 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Zwick v. Parkdale (Rural Municipality), [1934] 1 W.W.R. 17 (Sask. K.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

Ram v. Jinnah (1982), 39 A.R. 40 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 12].

Acquest/Alberta Mining Inc. v. Barry Developments Inc. (1999), 241 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Oxford Development Group Inc. et al. v. Midland Development Ltd., [1993] A.J. No. 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Pickering (Township) v. Godfrey, [1958] O.R. 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Clubb v. Clubb (1954), 62 Man. R. 543 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Deglman v. Brunet Estate - see Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada.

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada, [1954] S.C.R. 725, refd to. [para. 22].

Meston, Re; Meston v. Gray, [1925] 4 D.L.R. 887 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Brownscombe v. Public Trustee (Alta.), [1969] S.C.R. 658, refd to. [para. 23].

Lensen v. Lensen, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 672; 79 N.R. 334; 64 Sask.R. 6; [1988] 1 W.W.R. 481; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 23].

Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal, [1969] S.C.R. 515, refd to. [para. 27].

Heilbut, Symons & Co. v. Buckleton, [1913] A.C. 30 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bauer v. Bank of Montreal, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 102; 32 N.R. 191; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 424; 10 B.L.R. 209; 33 C.B.R.(N.S.) 291, refd to. [para. 28].

Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 958; 42 N.R. 147, refd to. [para. 28].

Kang v. Kang, [1996] A.J. No. 1148 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Curlett v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (1988), 87 A.R. 284; 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 39 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Whissell Enterprises Ltd. (1985), 62 A.R. 321 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 29].

Bartle & Gibson Co. v. T.K. Mechanical, [1994] A.J. No. 1147 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 29].

Slater v. Sharma (1981), 36 A.R. 208 (Q.B. Master), dist. [para. 32].

Statutes Noticed:

Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-5, sect. 139 [para. 15].

Statute of Frauds (1677), 29 Car. 2, c. 3, sect. 4 [para. 19].

Counsel:

Denis R. Noel (Reynolds, Mirth, Richards & Farmer), for the applicants;

Edward R. Feehan (Duncan & Craig), for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Johnstone, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on Octo­ber 28, 1999.