Domo Gasoline Corp. v. St. Albert Trail Properties Inc. et al., 2003 ABQB 649

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 18, 2003
• Citations: 2003 ABQB 649;(2003), 336 A.R. 57 (QB)

Domo Gasoline v. St. Albert Trail (2003), 336 A.R. 57 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AU.059

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

(Action No. 0303 10700; 2003 ABQB 649)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

July 25, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre. The plaintiff's lease provided that the lessor would not permit any other person, firm or corporation to sell gasoline or any other vehicle fuel in the shopping centre and that no changes to the ingress/egress of the shopping centre would be made without the plaintiff's approval. The defendant St. Albert Trail Properties Inc. subsequently became the owner of the shopping centre lands. It also purchased land adjacent to the shopping centre (Lot 12) and was developing the lands as one shopping complex, which included a gas bar on Lot 12. The plaintiff sued the defendants and applied for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from making any changes to the ingress/egress of the shopping centre and from permitting any person, firm or corporation to sell gasoline or other vehicle fuel in the shopping centre lands.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Injunctions - Topic 1615

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Delay - The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre - The plaintiff's lease provided that the lessor would not permit any other person, firm or corporation to sell gasoline or any other vehicle fuel in the shopping centre and that no changes to the ingress/egress of the shopping centre would be made without the plaintiff's approval - One of the defendants subsequently became the owner of the shopping centre lands - It also purchased land adjacent to the shopping centre (Lot 12) and was developing the lands as one shopping complex, which included a gas bar on Lot 12 that was 90 percent complete - The plaintiff sued the defendants and applied for an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from making any changes to the ingress/egress of the shopping centre and from permitting any person, firm or corporation to sell gasoline or other vehicle fuel in the shopping centre lands - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The restrictive covenant did not burden Lot 12, the plaintiff had not established irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants given the plaintiff's acquiescence and significant delay in bringing legal proceedings.

Injunctions - Topic 1804

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - Restrictive covenants affecting land - [See Injunctions - Topic 1615 ].

Injunctions - Topic 5972

Particular matters - Restrictive covenants - Restrictive covenants affecting land - [See Injunctions - Topic 1615 ].

Injunctions - Topic 5975

Particular matters - Restrictive covenants - Business lease - Restriction on landlord respecting other tenants - [See Injunctions - Topic 1615 ].

Landlord and Tenant - Topic 2847

The lease - Restrictive covenants - Business lease - Restriction on landlord respecting other tenants - [See Real Property - Topic 132 ].

Real Property - Topic 132

General principles - Covenants that run with land - What constitute - The plaintiff operated a gas bar at a shopping centre - The plaintiff's lease provided that it had the exclusive right to sell gasoline or any other vehicle fuel in the shopping centre and that the lessor would not permit any person, firm or corporation to sell gasoline or any other vehicle fuel in the shopping centre lands - One of the defendants subsequently became the owner of the shopping centre lands - It also purchased land adjacent to the shopping centre (Lot 12) and was developing the lands as one shopping complex, which included a gas bar on Lot 12 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the restrictive covenant in the plaintiff's lease did not burden Lot 12 - The restrictive covenant was never imposed on Lot 12 and the development of lands adjacent to or adjoining a commercial development did not extend restrictive covenants from the original development without more - See paragraphs 140 to 158.

Cases Noticed:

Operation Dismantle Inc. et al. v. Canada et al., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441; 59 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Ominayak et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. et al. (1985), 58 A.R. 161; 36 Alta. L.R.(2d) 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Spanos v. Luciano's Little Italy Ltd. et al. (1996), 184 A.R. 236; 122 W.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Excelsior Life Insurance Co. et al. (1987), 82 A.R. 316 (C.A.), dist. [para. 40].

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, refd to. [para. 41].

West Edmonton Mall Ltd. v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. (1993), 141 A.R. 266; 46 W.A.C. 266 (C.A.), consd. [para. 48].

Gulf Islands Navigation Ltd. v. Seafarers International Union of North America (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 216 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Debra's Hotels Inc. v. Lee et al. (1994), 159 A.R. 268 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 53].

525044 Alberta Ltd. v. Triple 5 Corp. (1993), 144 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 56].

W-K Trucking Inc. v. Bidulock Oilfield Service Ltd. (1998), 234 A.R. 363 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 57].

Jostens Canada Ltd. v. Gendron, [1993] O.J. No. 2791 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 70].

Woolworth (F.W.) Co. v. Hudson's Bay Co., Burnac Leaseholds Ltd. and Zeller's Inc. (1985), 61 N.B.R.(2d) 403; 158 A.P.R. 403 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

London Drugs Ltd. v. Truscan Realty Ltd. (1988), 3 R.P.R.(2d) 60 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 83].

Triple Crown Foods Ltd. v. Ridley Brothers Development Co. et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. B57 (S.C.), dist. [para. 89].

Slice v. Carozza Properties Inc. (1958), 215 Md 357, dist. [para. 90].

Edmond's of Fresno v. Macdonald Group Ltd. (1985), 171 Cal. App. 3d 598, dist. [para. 92].

Parker v. Lewis Grocer Co., [1963] 246 Miss. 873, dist. [para. 93].

Jacobs Pharmacy Co. v. Richard & Associates Inc., 229 Ga. 156 (Georgia S.C.), consd. [para. 99].

Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. Addison Green Meadows, Inc. (1972), 8 Ill. App. 3d 490, consd. [para. 102].

Redlands Bricks Ltd. v. Morris, [1970] A.C. 652 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 138].

Calgary (City) v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [1999] A.R. Uned. 169 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 140].

Integral Energy & Environmental Engineering Ltd. v. Schenker of Canada Ltd. et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 360; 253 W.A.C. 360 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 141].

White v. Lauder Developments Ltd. (1975), 9 O.R.(2d) 363 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 143].

Canada Safeway Ltd. v. Thompson (City) (1996), 112 Man.R.(2d) 94 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 143].

Westbank Holdings Ltd. v. Westgate Shopping Centre Ltd. et al. (2001), 155 B.C.A.C. 1; 254 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 143].

Cleary and Cleary v. Pavlinovic et al. (1987), 80 N.S.R.(2d) 22; 200 A.P.R. 22 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 152].

Lim v. Titov (1997), 208 A.R. 338 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 153].

Nylar Foods v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of Prince Rupert (1988), 48 D.L.R.(4th) 175 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].

Hubbard v. Fairbanks et al., [2001] A.R. Uned. 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164].

Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Davidson et al. (2001), 288 A.R. 308 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 164].

CIBC Development Corp. v. 724133 Alberta Ltd., [1999] A.J. No. 1656, refd to. [para. 172].

Canadian Urban Equities Ltd. et al. v. Direct Action For Life et al. (1990), 104 A.R. 358; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 109 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 176].

University of Regina Faculty Association et al. v. University of Regina et al. (1999), 182 Sask.R. 85 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 179].

Matheson et al. v. Nelson et al. (1999), 178 N.S.R.(2d) 18; 549 A.P.R. 18 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 182].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Preston and Newsom, Restrictive Covenants Affecting Freehold Lands (1998), p. 165 [para. 149].

Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance (2002), pp. 2-27, 2-28, 9-3, 9-4 [para. 52]; paras. 1.660 [para. 134]; 1.680 [para. 29]; 1.820 [para. 175].

Counsel:

Graham McLennan and Alexis Moulton (McLennan Ross LLP), for the applicant/plaintiff;

Donald R. Cranston, Q.C., and Chantall Washenfelder (Bennett Jones LLP), for the respondents/defendants, Save-On-Foods Ltd., Great Pacific Industries Inc. and Jim Pattison Developments Ltd.;

Joseph J. Kuber (Bryan & Co.), for the respondents/defendants, St. Albert Trail Properties Inc. and Brentwood Developments Inc.

This application was heard on July 18, 2003, before Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 25, 2003.