Brown v. Boon et al., 2015 MBQB 63

• Judge: Bryk, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: April 10, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBQB 63;(2015), 318 Man.R.(2d) 247 (QB)

Brown v. Boon (2015), 318 Man.R.(2d) 247 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.032

Shawn Alton Brown and Roxanne Marie Therese Brown (plaintiffs) v. Richard Boon, Arthur Boon, Daylight Capital Corporation and 4638817 Manitoba Ltd. (defendants)

(CI 03-01-35814; 2015 MBQB 63)

Indexed As: Brown v. Boon et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Bryk, J.

April 10, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants seeking, inter alia, recovery of title to their home.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action.

Contracts - Topic 3944

Performance or breach - Relief from forfeiture - When available - The plaintiffs sued the defendants seeking, inter alia, recovery of title to their home - The plaintiffs claimed that a series of documents signed by them in favour of the defendants was a loan agreement - They did not realize that they were transferring title to their home to the defendants or that their failure to make a rent payment to the defendants would result in them being unable to exercise an option to reacquire title to their home - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench rejected a fraudulent misrepresentation claim - However, the plaintiffs were not informed of the consequences of missing a payment such that the defendants were not able to rely on the forfeiture provision contained in the option - In any event, in these circumstances, the court would have granted relief against forfeiture - The court concluded that the nature of the relationship between the parties was that of a financing arrangement, resulting in a fiduciary relationship - The defendants did not hold beneficial title to the property - The plaintiffs had the right to exercise their option to reacquire title to the home by paying the outstanding balance of the loan and the service fee - They were not given the opportunity to do so by the defendants - Accordingly, the defendants were directed to transfer title to the plaintiffs - See paragraphs 57 to 182.

Equity - Topic 1068

Equitable relief - Relief from forfeiture - Grounds for relief - [See Contracts - Topic 3944 ].

Equity - Topic 3606

Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - What constitutes a fiduciary relationship - [See Contracts - Topic 3944 ].

Estoppel - Topic 379

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Cause of action - The plaintiffs' home mortgage fell into arrears - They looked to Daylight Capital Corp. for financial assistance - In return, the plaintiffs signed: (1) an offer to sell their property to Daylight; (2) a tenancy agreement; (3) an option to reacquire title upon payment of the loan balance plus a $1,500 fee; and (4) a land transfer agreement - The rent payments fell into arrears and Daylight sought an order of possession - The Residential Tenancies Commission held that there was no binding tenancy agreement - Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought to have the agreements they signed declared void - Daylight counterclaimed, seeking to enforce the tenancy agreement - The plaintiffs claimed that both cause of action and issue estoppel applied because of the Commission's ruling that there was no binding tenancy agreement - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that estoppel did not apply - See paragraphs 21 to 56.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - [See Estoppel - Topic 379 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 6

Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) - General principles - What constitutes deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation - [See Contracts - Topic 3944 ].

Cases Noticed:

Glenko Enterprises Ltd. v. Keller (2008), 225 Man.R.(2d) 207; 419 W.A.C. 207; 2008 MBCA 24, refd to. [para. 22].

Law Society of Manitoba v. Mackinnon (2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 223; 600 W.A.C. 223; 2014 MBCA 28, refd to. [para. 26].

Marvco Color Research Ltd. v. Harris and Harris, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 774; 45 N.R. 302, refd to. [para. 59].

Caisse populaire de La Salle Credit Union Ltd. v. River Ridge Properties Ltd. et al. (1997), 115 Man.R.(2d) 115; 139 W.A.C. 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

National Bank of Canada v. Digest Reporting Service Ltd., Bowden and Berard Estate (1985), 35 Man.R.(2d) 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Ruf v. Daylight Capital Corp. et al. (2003), 176 Man.R.(2d) 28; 2003 MBQB 156, refd to. [para. 66].

Askar v. Canada (2013), 299 Man.R.(2d) 141; 590 W.A.C. 141; 2013 MBCA 84, refd to. [para. 144].

Counsel:

Rocky H. Kravetsky, for the plaintiffs;

Gavin M. Wood, for the defendants.

This decision was heard by Bryk, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following decision on April 10, 2015.