Carruthers et al. v. Tioga Holdings Ltd., (1997) 199 A.R. 40 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 28, 1997
• Citations: (1997), 199 A.R. 40 (QBM)

Carruthers v. Tioga Holdings Ltd. (1997), 199 A.R. 40 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of Instrument No. 851 055 745 being a caveat on the lands legally described as plan Bragg Creek 4304 JK Lot 1

Barry Carruthers and E. Francis Hyland (applicants) v. Tioga Holdings Ltd. (respondent)

(File No. 9601-12491)

Indexed As: Carruthers et al. v. Tioga Holdings Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Laycock, Master

January 28, 1997.

Summary:

A vendor sold land to 314204. The sale agreement contained an option to purchase a portion of the land. The option contained positive covenants, including a requirement that the purchaser co-operate in obtaining subdivision approval. The vendor filed a caveat referring to the option to purchase. The vendor sought to exercise its option and sought to apply for subdivision approval. Tioga Holdings, a subsequent purchaser, refused to co-operate. The vendor sought a declaration that Tioga Holdings' interest in the land was subject to its option to purchase and an order requiring Tioga Holdings to comply with the positive covenants.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the vendor's option was properly filed. The court held that the vendor was not entitled to an order requiring Tioga Holdings to comply with the positive cove­nants.

Land Regulation - Topic 2702

Land use control - Subdivision control - Conveyance contrary to subdivision legis­lation - A land sale agreement granted the vendor an option to purchase a portion of the land subject to subdivision approval - The option permitted the vendor to sub­divide the land - A subsequent purchaser argued that the option was unenforceable because it was contrary to s. 95 of the Land Titles Act which prohibited the sale of a portion of land without subdivision approval - The purchaser also argued that s. 652(1) of the Municipal Government Act prohibited registration of a caveat that had the effect of subdividing a parcel of land without subdivision approval - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that neither provision was violated because there would be no sale until the land was subdivided and obtain­ing subdivision approval was a condition precedent to exercising the option - See paragraphs 20 to 23.

Real Property - Topic 1747

Equitable estates and interests - Equitable interests - Option to purchase land - [See Land Regulation - Topic 2702 ].

Real Property - Topic 7932

Title - Registration of instruments - Caveats or cautions - Form and content - A land sale agreement granted the vendor an option to purchase a portion of the land - The option permitted the vendor to subdivide the land and required the pur­chaser to co-operate in obtaining subdivi­sion approval - The vendor filed a caveat referring to the option to purchase but not the other matters - A subsequent purchaser claimed that the caveat did not comply with s. 131(1) of the Land Titles Act which required the caveator to state "the nature of the interest claimed and the grounds in which the claim is founded" - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the caveat was properly filed - The caveat clearly brought to the attention of the subsequent purchaser the nature of the interest claimed in the land and the other matters were related to the interest claimed - See paragraphs 9 to 19.

Sale of Land - Topic 4688

Restrictive or positive covenants - Positive covenants - Effect on subsequent pur­chasers - A land sale agreement granted the vendor an option to purchase a portion of the land subject to subdivision approval - The option contained a positive covenant requiring the purchaser to co-operate in obtaining subdivision approval - The vendor sought to exercise its option and sought to apply for subdivision approval - The land owner, a subsequent purchaser, refused to co-operate - The vendor applied for an order requiring the owner to comply with the positive covenants - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that positive covenants were not enforceable against subsequent pur­chasers - See paragraphs 24 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

Ruptash v. Zawick, [1956] S.C.R. 347, refd to. [para. 10].

Zellers (Western) Ltd. v. Calford Prop­erties Ltd., [1972] 5 W.W.R. 714; 29 D.L.R.(3d) 16 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Siewert v. Seward (1975), 54 D.L.R.(3d) 161 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Esso Resources Canada Ltd. v. Pacific Cassiar Ltd. (1986), 70 A.R. 391; 45 Alta. L.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Superior Oil Ltd. v. World Wide Oil and Gas (Western) Ltd. (1990), 102 A.R. 305; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Thiessen v. Savage (1996), 190 A.R. 154 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 21, 50].

Hipple v. Power Farms Ltd. (1991), 117 A.R. 150; 2 W.A.C. 150; 81 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hay v. Edmonton Savings and Credit Union Ltd. et al. (1989), 103 A.R. 122 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Marcrob Estates v. Servedio (1977), 1 R.P.R. 344 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, 50].

Rhone v. Stephens - see Rhone et al. v. Barnard Estate.

Rhone et al. v. Barnard Estate, [1994] 2 All E.R. 65; 168 N.R. 51 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 35].

Crump v. Kernahan et al. (1995), 173 A.R. 123 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Strus v. New Peel Developments Corp. et al. (1986), 54 O.R.(2d) 208 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Canadian Construction Co. v. Beaver (Alberta) Lumber Ltd., [1955] S.C.R. 682, refd to. [para. 35].

Weinblatt v. Kitchener (City) (1968), 1 D.L.R.(3d) 241 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 35, 50].

Sullivan v. Newsome (1987), 78 A.R. 297; 52 Alta. L.R.(2d) 304 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Garont Investments Ltd. v. Dodds (1990), 74 O.R.(2d) 771 (Gen. Div.), not folld. [para. 50].

Metropolitan Homes Ltd. v. Politzer (1975), 3 N.R. 621; 54 D.L.R.(3d) 376 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

White Resources Management Ltd. v. Durish (1995), 178 N.R. 321; 165 A.R. 20; 89 W.A.C. 20; 26 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153, dist. [para. 50].

Dynamic Transport Ltd. v. O.K. Detailing Ltd. (1978), 20 N.R. 500; 9 A.R. 308; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 19 (S.C.C.), dist. [para. 50].

Frobisher Ltd. v. Canadian Pipelines & Petroleums Ltd., [1960] S.C.R. 126, refd to. [para. 56].

Ram v. Jinnah (1982), 39 A.R. 40 (Q.B., Master), refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. L-5, sect. 95 [para. 20]; sect. 131(1) [para. 9].

Municipal Government Act, S.A. 1994, c. M-26.1, sect. 652(1) [para. 20]; sect. 652(5) [para. 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anger and Honsberger, The Canadian Law of Real Property (2nd Ed. 1985), c. 17, vol. 2, pp. 899 [para. 34]; 900 [para. 41]; 901 [para. 38]; 905 [para. 33].

Megarry, Manual of the Law of Real Pro­perty (4th Ed.), c. 11, [para. 36]; pp. 383 [para. 32]; 384 [para. 64].

Sinclair, Allan M., Introduction to Real Property Law (3rd Ed.), pp. 11 to 48 [para. 35]; 13 [para. 26]; 16 [para. 28].

Counsel:

Darel G. Samuelson, (Milner Fenerty), for the respondents\applicants;

Karl Gurevitch (Faber Gurevitch Bick­man), for the applicant\respondent.

This application was heard by Laycock, Master, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on January 28, 1997.