Bighorn No. 8 (Municipal District) v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, 2015 ABCA 127

JudgeBerger,Macleod,Veldhuis
Neutral Citation2015 ABCA 127
Subject MatterPOLLUTION CONTROL,CONTRACTS
Citation2015 ABCA 127,(2015), 599 A.R. 395,599 AR 395,(2015), 599 AR 395,599 A.R. 395
Date12 February 2015
CourtCourt of Appeal (Alberta)

Bighorn No. 8 v. Bow Valley Waste Mgmt. Comm. (2015), 599 A.R. 395; 643 W.A.C. 395 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AP.025

Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 (appellant) v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission (respondent)

(1401-0127-AC; 2015 ABCA 127)

Indexed As: Bighorn No. 8 (Municipal District) v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission

Alberta Court of Appeal

Berger and Veldhuis, JJ.A., and Macleod, J.(ad hoc)

April 2, 2015.

Summary:

This action involved the interpretation of a term contained within a sale and purchase agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The agreement transferred ownership of a landfill from the plaintiff to the defendant.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 578 A.R. 191, dismissed the action. The plaintiff appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Contracts - Topic 7401

Interpretation - General principles - Intention of parties (incl. reasonable expectations) - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8061 ].

Contracts - Topic 7409

Interpretation - General principles - Subsequent conduct of parties - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8061 ].

Contracts - Topic 7426

Interpretation - Ambiguity - What constitutes ambiguity - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8061 ].

Contracts - Topic 7430

Interpretation - Ambiguity - Admissibility of extrinsic evidence - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8061 ].

Contracts - Topic 7468

Interpretation - Interpretation of words - Whole of contract to be considered - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8061 ].

Contracts - Topic 7521

Interpretation - Surrounding circumstances - General - [See Pollution Control - Topic 8061 ].

Pollution Control - Topic 8061

Land - Waste disposal - General - This action involved the interpretation of a term contained within a sale and purchase agreement of a landfill entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant - The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant was, whether "C & D waste [...] tipped" included recyclable materials - The defendant had not paid the hosting fee on recyclables under the agreement - It was on this basis that the plaintiff alleged the defendant had breached the agreement and was in arrears on the payment of the hosting fee for those materials - The trial judge dismissed the action - The term "C & D waste tipped" was capable of bearing both meanings ascribed to it by the parties - That ambiguity was not resolved by simply looking at the words of the contract as a whole - No definitive assistance in interpreting that term could be obtained from review of the rest of the contract - The subsequent conduct whereby the defendant only paid the plaintiff for waste buried was not persuasive where the defendant did so without input from the plaintiff - The materials delivered to the landfill by the landfill's customers were certainly waste to those customers - However, the agreement related to the ownership and operation of a landfill in which the parties had a mutual interest - To the landfill, recyclables were not "useless remains or byproducts" - Recyclables were useful to the landfill owners - The Stanley and Xenex reports formed part of the factual matrix - The tonnages derived from the Stanley report and the Xenex report, and imported into clause 3.01 of the agreement were tonnages net of recyclables - This fact must be taken to have been known by each of the parties to the agreement - It provided objective evidence as to the intentions of the parties - Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant failed based in the main on the objective evidence of intention provided by the Stanley and Xenex reports - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal - The trial judge made no reviewable error in concluding that the phrase "C & D Waste ... tipped" in Clause 3.02 of the agreement did not include recyclables.

Cases Noticed:

Creston Moly Corp. v. Sattva Capital Corp. (2014), 461 N.R. 335; 358 B.C.A.C. 1; 614 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 5].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 5].

Vallieres et al. v. Vozniak (2014), 580 A.R. 326; 620 W.A.C. 326; 2014 ABCA 290, refd to. [para. 6].

Nexxtep Resources Ltd. v. Talisman Energy Inc. et al. (2013), 542 A.R. 212; 566 W.A.C. 212; 2013 ABCA 40, refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

D.K. Yasui, Q.C., for the appellant;

N.J. Parker, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 12, 2015, by Berger and Veldhuis, JJ.A., and Macleod, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on April 2, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Stewart Estate et al. v. TAQA North Ltd. et al., 2015 ABCA 357
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 19 November 2015
    ...A.C.W.S.(3d) 317; 2015 ABCA 132, refd to. [para. 269]. Bighorn No. 8 (Municipal District) v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission (2015), 599 A.R. 395; 643 W.A.C. 395; 251 A.C.W.S.(3d) 508 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 269]. Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. et al.......
  • Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction, 2016 ABCA 249
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 29 August 2016
    ...an impact beyond the parties to the particular dispute"); Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission , 2015 ABCA 127, ¶ 7; 13 Alta. L.R. 6th 342, 345 ("correctness remains the appropriate standard of review when interpreting standard form contracts since t......
  • Esfahani v Samimi,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 5 December 2022
    ...for example: Vallieres v Vozniak, 2014 ABCA 290 at para 12; Bighorn (Municipal District No 8) v Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, 2015 ABCA 127. [66]           Without the Alberta Court of Appeal clearly adopting Sattva in respect of a......
  • UNMIXING THE MIXED QUESTIONS: A FRAMEWORK FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN QUESTIONS OF FACT AND QUESTIONS OF LAW IN CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION.
    • Canada
    • University of British Columbia Law Review Vol. 52 No. 2, June 2019
    • 1 June 2019
    ...contract is reviewed for palpable and overriding error. See Bighorn (Municipal District No 8) v Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, 2015 ABCA 127 at paras 5, (171) See. Elias, supra note 165. (172) Ibid at para 102. (173) The court quotes the trial judge, "I cannot say that the meaning ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Stewart Estate et al. v. TAQA North Ltd. et al., 2015 ABCA 357
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 19 November 2015
    ...A.C.W.S.(3d) 317; 2015 ABCA 132, refd to. [para. 269]. Bighorn No. 8 (Municipal District) v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission (2015), 599 A.R. 395; 643 W.A.C. 395; 251 A.C.W.S.(3d) 508 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 269]. Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. et al.......
  • Valard Construction Ltd. v. Bird Construction, 2016 ABCA 249
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 29 August 2016
    ...an impact beyond the parties to the particular dispute"); Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8 v. Bow Valley Waste Management Commission , 2015 ABCA 127, ¶ 7; 13 Alta. L.R. 6th 342, 345 ("correctness remains the appropriate standard of review when interpreting standard form contracts since t......
  • Esfahani v Samimi,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 5 December 2022
    ...for example: Vallieres v Vozniak, 2014 ABCA 290 at para 12; Bighorn (Municipal District No 8) v Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, 2015 ABCA 127. [66]           Without the Alberta Court of Appeal clearly adopting Sattva in respect of a......
  • 956126 Alberta Ltd v JMS Alberta Co Ltd,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 November 2020
    ...Bighorn (Municipal District No. 8) v Bow Valley Waste Management Commission, 2013 ABQB 723 at paras 12-13, aff’d on other grounds 2015 ABCA 127. [77] In BG Checo International Ltd v British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, [1993] 1 SCR 12, 1993 CanLII 145 at 24, the majority of the Supre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT