Domo Gasoline Corp. v. St. Albert Trail Properties Inc. et al., (2005) 366 A.R. 13 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 12, 2005
• Citations: (2005), 366 A.R. 13 (QB);2005 ABQB 69

Domo Gasoline v. St. Albert Trail Prop. (2005), 366 A.R. 13 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. FE.060

Domo Gasoline Corporation Ltd. (plaintiff) v. St. Albert Trail Properties Inc., Brentwood Developments Inc., Save-on-Foods Ltd., Great Pacific Industries Ltd., and Jim Pattison Developments Ltd. (defendants)

(0303 10700; 2005 ABQB 69)

Indexed As: Domo Gasoline Corp. v. St. Albert Trail Properties Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

January 12, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre on leased premises. The plaintiff sued the shopping centre owner and the landlord, seeking declarations relating to ingress and egress to the leased premises and damages. The plaintiff moved for interim and permanent injunctions: (a) restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's leased premises (the trespass issue): (b) requiring the defendants to remove any structures, including barricades, placed on the plaintiff's leased premises (the business interference issue); and (c) requiring the defendants to return the road to its original location (the ingress/egress issue).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused the plaintiff's request for an injunction in relation to the trespass and ingress/egress issues. However, the court granted the plaintiff's motion in relation to the business interference issue and ordered the defendants to remove a concrete median.

Editor's Note: For a prior decision involving these parties see 336 A.R. 57.

Estoppel - Topic 387

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters or claims available in prior proceedings - [See first Estoppel - Topic 391 ].

Estoppel - Topic 391

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Effect on application for an interim or interlocutory injunction - The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre on leased premises - The plaintiff sued the shopping centre owner and the landlord, seeking declarations regarding ingress and egress to the leased premises and damages - The plaintiff moved for interim and permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's leased premises and requiring the defendants to remove any structures placed on the leased premises and to return the road to its original location - Lee, J., had dismissed an earlier application by the plaintiff for an injunction restraining the defendants from making changes to the avenue of ingress or egress to the leased premises - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that: (a) the fact that the plaintiff had an "anticipatory" expectation of the possibility of the road being moved: and (b) the fact that the plaintiff might have anticipated some other effects that it might have to seek to enforce under the lease, did not prevent the present application from being brought as contrary to a principle of issue estoppel arising from the ruling of Lee, J. -See paragraphs 29 to 34.

Estoppel - Topic 391

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Effect on application for an interim or interlocutory injunction - The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre on leased premises - The plaintiff sued the shopping centre owner and the landlord, seeking declarations regarding ingress and egress to the leased premises and damages - The plaintiff moved for an order granting interim and permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from trespassing on the plaintiff's leased premises and requiring the defendants to remove any structures placed on the leased premises and to return the road to its original location - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that issue estoppel applied with respect to the question of whether other persons should be permitted to sell gasoline or fuel in the shopping centre as that issue had been addressed in an earlier injunction application brought by the plaintiff - Therefore, for the purposes of the question of irreparable harm in the present application, it was not a relevant consideration whether there existed harm arising from a competitor gas station - The court stated that if it were to consider reopening that issue on the basis that an interlocutory injunction could be revisited, a strong argument could be made that the plaintiff would have to make some argument that the competitor gas station actually caused it harm - See paragraphs 19 to 28.

Injunctions - Topic 1800

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - General - [See both Injunctions - Topic 5953 ].

Injunctions - Topic 5953

Particular matters - Contracts - Negative covenants - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the traditional test for an injunction tended to be adjusted somewhat when dealing with questions of trespass or blatant interference with negative covenants under contracts - The court stated that "In a sense - by way of having an internal balancing within the test the negative covenant case has required a higher level than a prima facie case. They require a fairly compelling or strong prima facie case to justify a finding that there is an issue to be tried on the breach of a negative covenant. But having established that strong prima facie case in relation to the alleged breach of a negative covenant or trespass ... one then finds that it is a fairly easier road ... to get to the point of injunctions" - The court further stated that once you established a strong prima facie case of a breach of a negative covenant, it would not be necessary for the plaintiff to establish exactly what the nature of their irreparable harm was - See paragraphs 86 to 93.

Injunctions - Topic 5953

Particular matters - Contracts - Negative covenants - The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre on leased premises - The plaintiff sued the shopping centre owner and the landlord, seeking declarations relating to ingress and egress to the leased premises and damages - The plaintiff moved for an injunction requiring the defendants to remove any structures, including barricades, placed on the plaintiff's leased premises - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion where the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case that the installation of a concrete median by the defendants breached a negative covenant in the lease - While the evidence was skimpy as to what damages the plaintiff would suffer as a result of the existence of the concrete median, the factor of irreparable harm yielded somewhat when it was a situation where it could not be quantified - The balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiff - See paragraphs 84 to 125.

Injunctions - Topic 6901

Particular matters - Trespass to land - General - [See first Injunctions - Topic 5953 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al. (2003), 344 A.R. 299; 2003 ABQB 1067, refd to. [para. 18, footnote 4].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel et al., [2003] A.R. Uned. 83; 31 B.L.R.(3d) 130; [2003] 6 W.W.R. 368; 13 Alta. L.R.(4th) 205; 2003 CarswellAlta 200; 2003 ABQB 110, revd. [2004] 6 W.W.R. 54; 346 A.R. 356; 320 W.A.C. 356; 42 B.L.R.(3d) 26; 27 Alta. L.R.(4th) 81; 2004 ABCA 95, leave to appeal refused (2004), 333 N.R. 394; 2004 CarswellAlta 1320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 4].

R. v. Adams (J.R.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707; 190 N.R. 161; 178 A.R. 161; 110 W.A.C. 161; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 262; 44 C.R.(4th) 195; 131 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 1995 CarswellAlta 733, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 6].

LSI Logic Corp. of Canada Inc. et al. v. Logani et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 740; 296 A.R. 201; 204 D.L.R.(4th) 443; 19 B.L.R.(3d) 101; 96 Alta. L.R.(3d) 162; 2001 CarswellAlta 1100; 2001 ABQB 710, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 7].

Stanley case - see Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al.

Toronto (City) et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291; 232 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 120 L.A.C.(4th) 225; 31 C.C.E.L.(3d) 216; 2003 CarswellOnt 4328; 2003 C.L.L.C. 220-071; 2003 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 8].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 54 O.R.(3d) 214; 10 C.C.E.L.(3d) 1; 7 C.P.C.(5th) 199; 2001 C.L.L.C. 210-033; 34 Admin. L.R.(3d) 163; 2001 CarswellOnt 2434; 2001 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 9].

Iron et al. v. Norsask Forest Productions Inc. et al. - see Iron et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) et al.

Iron et al. v. Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment and Public Safety) et al., [1993] 6 W.W.R. 1; 109 Sask.R. 49; 42 W.A.C. 49; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 585; 1993 CarswellSask 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 11].

Manulife Bank of Canada v. Conlin et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 415; 203 N.R. 81; 94 O.A.C. 161; 6 R.P.R.(3d) 1; 30 O.R.(3d) 577; 139 D.L.R.(4th) 426; 30 B.L.R.(2d) 1; 1996 CarswellOnt 3941, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 12].

Somersall v. Friedman et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 109; 292 N.R. 1; 163 O.A.C. 201; 25 M.V.R.(4th) 1; 39 C.C.L.I.(3d) 1; 215 D.L.R.(4th) 577; [2002] I.L.R. 1-4114; [2002] R.R.A. 679; 2002 CarswellOnt 2550; 2002 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 12].

R. v. East Crest Oil Co., [1945] S.C.R 191; 83 C.C.C. 211; [1945] 2 D.L.R. 353; 1945 CarswellAlta 120, refd to. [para. 39, footnote 14].

Didow and Knox v. Alberta Power Ltd., [1988] 5 W.W.R. 606; 88 A.R. 250; 60 Alta. L.R.(2d) 212; 45 C.C.L.T. 231; 40 L.C.R. 26; 50 R.P.R. 31; 1988 CarswellAlta 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 16].

Baten's case (1610), 77 E.R. 810, refd to. [para. 50, footnote 16].

MacKenzie et al. v. First Marathon Securities Ltd. et al. (2004), 365 A.R. 259; 2004 CarswellAlta 1523; 2004 ABQB 834, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 19].

Deboer et al. v. Raymaker (Darryl J.) Professional Corp. et al. (2004), 357 A.R. 182; 334 W.A.C. 182; 2004 CarswellAlta 1341; 2004 ABCA 326, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 20].

M.J.B. Enterprises Ltd. v. Defence Construction (1951) Co. et al., [1999] 1 S.C.R. 619; 237 N.R. 334; 232 A.R. 360; 195 W.A.C. 360; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 44 C.L.R.(2d) 163; 69 Alta. L.R.(3d) 341; 49 B.L.R.(2d) 1; [1999] 7 W.W.R. 681; 1999 CarswellAlta 301; 3 M.P.L.R.(3d) 165; 2 T.C.L.R. 235, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 21].

Shelanu Inc. et al. v. Print Three Franchising Corp. (2003), 172 O.A.C. 78; 226 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 64 O.R.(3d) 533; 38 B.L.R.(3d) 42; 2003 CarswellOnt 2038 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 22].

Transamerica Life Canada Inc. et al. v. ING Canada Inc., [2003] A.R. Uned. 565; [2004] I.L.R. 1-4258; 234 D.L.R.(4th) 367; 41 B.L.R.(3d) 1; 2003 CarswellOnt 4834 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 22].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 54 C.P.R.(3d) 114; 1994 CarswellQue 120, appld. [para. 84, footnote 23].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] 1 All E.R. 504 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 25].

Hampstead & Suburban Properties Ltd. v. Diomedous, [1968] 3 All E.R. 545 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 25].

Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 25].

Cambridge Nutrition Ltd. v. British Broadcasting Corp., [1990] 3 All E.R. 523 (C.A. Civ. Div.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 26].

Douglas and Zeta-Jones, Northern & Shell plc v. Hello! Ltd., [2001] 2 W.L.R. 992; [2001] 2 All E.R. 289 (C.A. Civ. Div.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 26].

Debra's Hotels Inc. v. Lee et al. (1994), 159 A.R. 268; 24 Alta. L.R.(3d) 199; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 468; 1994 CarswellAlta 244 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 86, footnote 27].

Board of Education of Sturgeon School Division No. 24 et al. v. Alberta et al. (2000), 272 A.R. 190; 2000 CarswellAlta 1017 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 28].

Sulphur Corp. of Canada Ltd. v. Proprietary Industries Inc. et al. (2002), 320 A.R. 77; 288 W.A.C. 77; 2002 CarswellAlta 655; 2002 ABCA 120, affing. (2002), 318 A.R. 234 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 28].

M.W.L. Ltd. v. Woods, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1294, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 28].

W-K Trucking Inc. v. Bidulock Oilfield Service Ltd. (1998), 234 A.R. 363; 26 C.P.C.(4th) 400; 1998 CarswellAlta 1058 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 87, footnote 29].

West Edmonton Mall Ltd. v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. (1993), 141 A.R. 266; 46 W.A.C. 266; 49 C.P.R.(3d) 539; 1993 CarswellAlta 632, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 30].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Excelsior Life Insurance Co. et al. (1987), 82 A.R. 316; 55 Alta. L.R.(2d) 120; 1987 CarswellAlta 213 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 35].

Ominayak et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. et al., [1985] 3 W.W.R. 193; 58 A.R. 161; 36 Alta. L.R.(2d) 137; [1985] 3 C.N.L.R. 111; 1985 CarswellAlta 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119, footnote 40].

Apotex Fermentation Inc. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., [1994] 7 W.W.R. 420; 95 Man.R.(2d) 241; 70 W.A.C. 241; 29 C.P.C.(3d) 58; 56 C.P.R.(3d) 20; 1994 CarswellMan 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 119, footnote 41].

United Nurses of Alberta et al. v. St. Michael's Health Centre et al. (2002), 317 A.R. 319; 284 W.A.C. 319; 2002 CarswellAlta 1707; 2003 ABCA 5, refd to. [para. 121, footnote 42].

Bar C Ranch and Cattle Co. v. Red Rock Sawmills Ltd. et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 48; 2004 CarswellAlta 365; 2004 ABCA 113, refd to. [para. 122, footnote 43].

525044 Alberta Ltd. v. Triple Five Corp. (1993), 144 A.R. 241; 13 Alta. L.R.(3d) 128; 21 C.P.C.(3d) 203 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 44].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), pp. 470, 471 [para. 37, footnote 13].

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (4th Ed. 1999), generally [paras. 37, 67, footnotes 13, 20].

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allen M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (Looseleaf), vol. 3, pp. 23-14 [para. 39, footnote 14]; 23-15 [paras. 39, 102, footnotes 14, 34].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (1st Ed. 1983), generally [para. 84, footnote 24].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2nd Ed. 1992), p. 2-4 [para. 87, footnote 29].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (3rd Ed. 2000) (2001 Looseleaf Supp.), p. 1.3 [para. 88, footnote 31].

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (3rd Ed. 2000) (2004 Looseleaf Supp.), p. 4.31 [para. 118, footnote 38].

Spry, Ian C.F., The Principles of Equitable Remedies (5th Ed. 1997), p. 470 [para. 121, footnote 42].

Ziff, Bruce H., Principles of Property Law (3rd Ed. 2000), p. 268 [para. 61, footnote 18].

Counsel:

Graham McLennan and Scott Hipfner (McLennan Ross LLP), for the plaintiff;

Brent W. Mielke (Shtabsky & Tussman LLP), for the defendants St. Albert Trail Properties Inc. and Brentwood Developments Inc.;

No counsel for the defendants Save-on-Foods Ltd., Great Pacific Industries Ltd. and Jim Pattison Developments Ltd.

This application was heard on January 12, 2005, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton. The following reasons for judgment were delivered orally by Watson, J., on January 12, 2005, and written reasons were filed on February 8, 2005.