Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. v. Western Environment of Oklahoma et al., 2002 ABQB 347

• Judge: Moshansky, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 04, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 347;(2002), 314 A.R. 224 (QB)

Bartin Pipe & Piling v. Western Env. (2002), 314 A.R. 224 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. AP.120

Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Western Environment of Oklahoma, Shell Canada Resources Limited and Wrangler Pipe Services Inc. (defendant) and Epscan Industries Ltd. (defendant by court order)

Epscan Industries Ltd. (plaintiff by counterclaim/defendant by court order) v. Bartin Pipe & Piling Supply Ltd. and Western Environmental of Oklahoma (defendant by counterclaim/plaintiff)

(Action No. 9801-11755; 2002 ABQB 347)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Moshansky, J.

April 4, 2002.

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 Epscan's pipe.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed Epscan's counterclaim and determined damages accordingly.

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 (Sales of Good Act, s. 27(1)) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - There was a constructive delivery of the goods to Epscan - Therefore, Western was no longer a vendor in possession - Further, Bartin was wilfully blind respecting the true ownership of the pipe and could not claim to have acted in good faith - See paragraphs 42 to 64.

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:

Gamers Motor Centre (New Castle) Pty. Ltd. v. Natwest Wholesale Aust. Pty. Ltd., [1987] A.L.R. 321, refd to. [para. 50].

Battle River Dodge Chrysler (1994) Ltd. v. Vulcan Chev Olds Geo Ltd. (1999), 242 A.R. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 53].

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. 53].

Standard Bank London Ltd. v. Bank of Tokyo Ltd., [1995] N.L.O.R. No. 2430 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Dowe v. J.J.'s Pawn Shop (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 363; 362 A.P.R. 363 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Emco Ltd. v. Wilkinson, [1979] A.J. No. 177 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 57].

Traders Finance Corp. v. Reynolds (Stan) Auto Sales Ltd., [1955] 1 D.L.R. 670 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 65].

Counsel:

Virginia M. May, Q.C., and Stacy Petriuk (May Jensen Shawa Solomon), for Epscan plaintiff by counterclaim;

Clarence J. Hookenson (Zenith Hookenson), for Bartin Pipe & Western Environmental defendant by counterclaim.

This counterclaim was heard before Moshansky, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 4, 2002.