Covlin v. Minhas et al., 2009 ABQB 42

• Judge: Lutz, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 03, 2008
• Citations: 2009 ABQB 42;(2009), 468 A.R. 301 (QB)

Covlin v. Minhas (2009), 468 A.R. 301 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. FE.045

Verna J. Covlin (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) v. Yadvinder Minhas, Mohinder Singh, Rasandeep Singh and Mandeep Singh (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim)

(0503 06765; 2009 ABQB 42)

Indexed As: Covlin v. Minhas et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lutz, J.

January 21, 2009.

Summary:

The defendant vendors agreed to sell property to the plaintiff purchaser. The sale was not completed. The plaintiff brought an action, pleading the contract and alleging that between the date the contract was signed and the closing date, the property sustained a substantial amount of damage. The plaintiff sought an order for specific performance and damages. In the alternative, the plaintiff sought judgment for damages of $248,000. She also sought interest under the Judgment Interest Act and costs on a solicitor and client basis. The defendants counterclaimed, seeking the removal of the plaintiff's caveat and Certificate of Lis Pendens. In addition, the defendants sought special damages by reason of their inability to earn rental income as a result of these proceedings.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract, at the purchase price set out in the contract, together with costs of these proceedings. The plaintiff was also entitled to receive $10,000 in damages as a result of the substantial change in the condition of the property. The plaintiff was entitled to pre-judgment interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act. The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed with costs.

Sale of Land - Topic 8551

Remedies of purchaser - Specific performance - When available - The defendant vendors agreed to sell property to the plaintiff purchaser - The sale was not completed - The plaintiff brought an action, pleading the contract and alleging that between the date the contract was signed and the closing date, the property sustained a substantial amount of damage - The plaintiff sought, inter alia, an order for specific performance and damages - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract at the purchase price set out in the contract - The subject property was part of a group of properties that, taken together, formed a commercially unique opportunity for the plaintiff - Her business plan included the development of an apartment and commercial complex in the long term, with the use of the existing house on the property as a rental unit in the interim - The subject property was uniquely situated for the purposes of her plan, as it was in line with several other properties already owned by the plaintiff and her husband - There was a strong objective nexus between the property and the plaintiff's business plan - While the plaintiff could arguably develop six lots instead of seven, the addition of the seventh property provided her with an opportunity that could not be reasonably duplicated - Whether or not the plaintiff's business plan could ultimately be realized was not relevant - The property in question was of particular and unique value to the plaintiff and for that reason damages were not an appropriate remedy - See paragraphs 39 to 58.

Cases Noticed:

Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415; 197 N.R. 379; 91 O.A.C. 379, refd to. [para. 39].

Dodge (John E.) Holdings Ltd. v. 805062 Ontario Ltd. (2003), 168 O.A.C. 252; 63 O.R.(3d) 304 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2003), 326 N.R. 195; 194 O.A.C. 197 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

United Gulf Developments Ltd. et al. v. Iskandar et al. (2004), 222 N.S.R.(2d) 137; 701 A.P.R. 137; 2004 NSCA 35, leave to appeal refused (2004), 333 N.R. 193; 233 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 739 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

1244034 Alberta Ltd. v. Walton International Group Inc. et al. (2007), 422 A.R. 189; 415 W.A.C. 189; 2007 ABCA 372, leave to appeal refused (2008), 387 N.R. 383; 460 A.R. 149; 462 W.A.C. 149 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

410675 Alberta Ltd. v. Trail South Developments Inc. et al. (2001), 293 A.R. 181; 257 W.A.C. 181; 2001 ABCA 274, leave to appeal refused (2002), 293 N.R. 190; 312 A.R. 340; 281 W.A.C. 340 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

365733 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. Tibero et al. (2008), 440 A.R. 177; 438 W.A.C. 177; 2008 ABCA 341, refd to. [para. 48].

532782 B.C. Inc. v. Republic Financial Ltd., [2001] A.R. Uned. 207; 2001 ABQB 581, refd to. [para. 50].

2475813 Nova Scotia Ltd. v. Lundrigan (2003), 213 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 667 A.P.R. 53; 2003 NSSC 48, refd to. [para. 51].

11 Suntract Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Chassis Service & Hydraulics Ltd. et al. (1997), 49 O.T.C. 112; 36 O.R.(3d) 328 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 56].

Costello and Dickoff v. Calgary (City) (1997), 209 A.R. 1; 160 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1998), 227 N.R. 149; 212 A.R. 398; 168 W.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anger and Honsberger, The Law of Real Property (3rd Ed. 2006) (2007 Looseleaf), pp. 23, 24 [para. 44].

Counsel:

D. Hagg, Q.C. (Bryan & Co), for the plaintiff;

E. Feehan (Duncan & Craig), for the defendants.

This action was heard on November 3, 2008, by Lutz, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on January 21, 2009.