Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. v. Western Environment of Oklahoma et al., 2004 ABCA 52

• Judge: MacLeod,Paperney,Paperny,Wittmann
• Neutral Citation: 2004 ABCA 52
• Citation: 2004 ABCA 52,(2004), 346 A.R. 95 (CA),346 AR 95,(2004), 346 AR 95 (CA),346 A.R. 95
• Date: 18 February 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)

Bartin Pipe & Piling v. Western Env. (2004), 346 A.R. 95 (CA);

    320 W.A.C. 95

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MR.035

Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. (appellant/defendant) v. Epscan Industries Ltd. (respondent/plaintiff)

(0201-0227-AC; 2004 ABCA 52)

Indexed As: Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. v. Western Environment of Oklahoma et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wittmann and Paperny, JJ.A., and MacLeod, J.(ad hoc)

February 18, 2004.

Summary:

Shell sold oilfield pipe to Western Environmental of Oklahoma (Western). Western sold the pipe to Epscan Industries Ltd. (Epscan). Western purported to sell some of the same pipe to Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. (Bartin). In a counterclaim, Epscan sought damages against Bartin on the grounds of conversion of Epscan's pipe.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 314 A.R. 224, allowed Epscan's counterclaim and determined damages accordingly. Bartin appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment below and dismissed Epscan's counterclaim.

Sale of Goods - Topic 2708

Transfer of property in goods from seller to buyer - General principles - Whether title to goods passed to buyer - Shell shutdown an oil refinery and sold oilfield pipe to Western - Western sold some pipe to Epscan - Epscan paid for the pipe upfront -Western was responsible for dismantling, cutting and loading the pipe for removal from Shell's refinery - Western purported to sell some of the same pipe to Bartin - Bartin removed over 300 tons of pipe from the refinery site - In a counterclaim, Epscan sought damages against Bartin on the grounds of conversion of Epscan's pipe - Bartin argued, inter alia, that Western was a vendor in possession and that Bartin purchased the pipe in good faith and without notice (Sale of Goods Act, s. 27(1)) - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that Bartin did bring itself within s. 27(1) - Western had continuous possession and appeared to be the owner of the goods - It was not established that Bartin was wilfully blind or acted without good faith or with notice of the defect in title.

Sale of Goods - Topic 3126

Transfer or loss of title to third parties - Sale to bona fide purchaser without notice - Possession or continuation of possession by original seller - [See Sale of Goods - Topic 2708 ].

Cases Noticed:

Allen v. University Hospitals Board et al. (2002), 312 A.R. 59; 281 W.A.C. 59; 2002 ABCA 195, refd to. [para. 10].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 10].

Gamers Motor Centre (New Castle) Pty. Ltd. v. Natwest Wholesale Aust. Pty. Ltd. (1987), A.L.R. 321 (Aust. H.C.), dist. [para. 11].

Kitto v. Bilbie, Hobson & Co. (1895), 72 L.T. 266, refd to. [para. 14].

Bishopgate Motor Finance Corp. v. Transport Brakes Ltd., [1949] 1 K.B. 323, refd to. [para. 17].

Mitchell v. Jones, [1905] N.Z.S.C. 932, refd to. [para. 19].

Worcester Works Finance Ltd. v. Cooden Engineering Co., [1972] 1 Q.B. 210, refd to. [para. 20].

General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Mahfouz and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. (1984), 67 A.R. 145; 14 D.L.R.(4th) 437 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Battle River Dodge Chrysler (1994) Ltd. v. Vulcan Chev Olds Geo Ltd. (1999), 242 A.R. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Standard Bank London Ltd. v. Bank of Tokyo Ltd., [1995] N.L.O.R. No. 2430 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Rainthorpe v. Rice, [1993] O.J. No. 2582 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Williams (H.L.) (2003), 308 N.R. 235; 231 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 686 A.P.R. 1; 2003 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Vinokurov (D.) (2001), 281 A.R. 176; 248 W.A.C. 176; 2001 ABCA 113, refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Sale of Goods Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-2, sect. 27(1) [para. 6].

Counsel:

D.F. Younggren, for the appellant;

S.D. Petriuk, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Wittmann and Paperney, JJ.A., and MacLeod, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. Wittmann, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court on February 18, 2004.