Ghermezian v. Corey Developments Inc. et al., 2001 ABQB 914

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 29, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 914;(2001), 302 A.R. 47 (QB)

Ghermezian v. Corey Dev. Inc. (2001), 302 A.R. 47 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. NO.077

Nader Ghermezian (plaintiff/respondent) v. Corey Developments Inc. (defendant/appellant) and Allan Brown (defendant/not party to the appeal)

(Action Nos. 0003 09356; 9903 22832; 2001 ABQB 914)

Indexed As: Ghermezian v. Corey Developments Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

October 29, 2001.

Summary:

Corey Developments Inc. was granted judgment against Ghermezian. Ghermezian sued Corey and Brown for specific performance of an alleged settlement of the judgment debt. Corey and Brown applied for summary judgment under rule 159 to dismiss Ghermezian's action.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, granted summary judgment to Brown on the basis that his involvement was exclusively as Corey's agent. The Master dismissed Corey's application on the basis that there was a dispute of facts as to the existence and terms of the alleged settlement. Corey appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and granted summary judgment to Corey. The court stated that if it had erred in granting summary judgment, it would have ordered a summary trial. The court would also have ordered the provision of security pending a trial or summary trial in an amount equal to the payments that would have been made had Corey accepted the putative agreement. Failing such payment, the court would have dismissed the action without further order.

Contracts - Topic 2861

Consideration - What constitutes consideration - General - Ghermezian sued Corey for specific performance of an alleged settlement of a judgment debt owed by Ghermezian to Corey - The alleged settlement allegedly involved a payment schedule whereby Ghermezian could acquit the prior judgment debt by partial payment involving some immediate money and some terms - Ghermezian claimed that the consideration could be a peppercorn to meet any concern of the absence of a clear written agreement - He suggested that saving Corey some collection cost would constitute consideration more than a peppercorn - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench agreed, but held that Corey got no more than a future promise to provide something which might or might not save Corey money in collection - This was not present consideration in fact - It was a "potential peppercorn" - See paragraphs 106 to 111.

Contracts - Topic 4106

Remedies for breach - Specific performance - When available - General - Ghermezian sued Corey for specific performance of an alleged settlement of a judgment debt owed by Ghermezian to Corey - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held, inter alia, that specific performance was not available - The putative agreement was so ambiguous in significant details that both its enforceability and its existence were in question - A court could not order the carrying out of an ambiguous and incomplete negotiation between parties and, in order to do so, supplement the outline of a proposed agreement by what the court thought were the appropriate terms and conditions to make it effective - See paragraphs 82 to 103.

Practice - Topic 3259

Payment of money into court - General principles - Failure to pay - Effect of - Ghermezian sued Corey for specific performance of an alleged settlement of a judgment debt owed by Ghermezian to Corey - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted summary judgment to Corey - The court stated that if it had erred in granting summary judgment, it would have ordered a summary trial - The court would also have ordered the provision of security pending a trial or summary trial in an amount equal to the payments that would have been made had Corey accepted the putative agreement - Failing such payment, the court would have dismissed the action without further order - See paragraphs 123 to 124.

Practice - Topic 3274

Payment of money into court - When available - Pending trial of action - [See Practice - Topic 3259 ].

Practice - Topic 5255.4

Trials - General - Summary trials - Availability of - Ghermezian sued Corey for specific performance of an alleged settlement of a judgment debt owed by Ghermezian to Corey - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted summary judgment to Corey - The court stated that if it had erred in granting summary judgment, it would have ordered a summary trial - The fact that a credibility finding might be thought necessary by the trial judge was not an impediment because the trial judge could order oral evidence under rule 185.5(1)(g) - There were not a lot of witnesses and not all of them would be necessary - The trial judge could set terms and conditions for the trial under the Rules - See paragraphs 120 to 122.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available - Rule 159(2) of the Alberta Rules of Court stated that "A defendant may, after delivering a statement of defence, on the ground that there is no merit to a claim or part of a claim or that the only genuine issue is as to amount, apply to the court for a judgment on an affidavit sworn by him or some other person who can swear positively to the facts, stating that there is no merit to the whole or part of the claim or that the only genuine issue is as to amount and that the deponent knows of no facts that would substantiate the claim or any part of it." - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the test for summary judgment under rule 159(2) - See paragraphs 58 to 81.

Practice - Topic 5719

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - [See Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Specific Performance - Topic 506

When available - General principles - Contractual obligations - [See Contracts - Topic 4106 ].

Cases Noticed:

Meditrust Healthcare Inc. v. Shoppers Drug Mart et al. (1999), 124 O.A.C. 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 1].

ADGA Systems International Ltd. v. Valcom Ltd. et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 39; 43 O.R.(3d) 101 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2, footnote 2].

V.A.H. v. Lynch et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 359; 220 W.A.C. 359; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 658 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 3].

Northern Cablevision Ltd. v. Chinook Cable T.V. Ltd. et al. (1996), 192 A.R. 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 4].

Arrotta et al. v. AVVA Light Corp. et al. (1995), 178 A.R. 100; 110 A.R. 100 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 5].

K.V.R. Electric Ltd. v. Edgar et al. (1994), 163 A.R. 147 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 6].

Franklin v. Consolidated GMP Ltd., [1998] A.R. Uned. 298 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 7].

590988 Alberta Ltd. et al. v. 728699 Alberta Ltd. et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 222; 30 C.P.C.(4th) 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 8].

Adams et al. v. Norcen Energy Resources Ltd. (1999), 248 A.R. 120; 72 Alta. L.R.(3d) 234 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 9].

Carey Canada Inc. et al. v. Hunt et al. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321; 4 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1; 43 C.P.C.(2d) 105; 49 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1990] 6 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 10].

Hunt v. Lac d'Amiante du Québec Ltée et al., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 289; 161 N.R. 81; 37 B.C.A.C. 161; 60 W.A.C. 161; [1994] 1 W.W.R. 129; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 16; 85 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 21 C.P.C.(3d) 269, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 10].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Stahl et al., [1999] A.R. Uned. 252 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 12].

Allied-Signal Inc. v. Dome Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1991), 122 A.R. 321; 81 Alta. L.R.(2d) 307 (Q.B.), revd. (1992), 131 A.R. 134; 25 W.A.C. 134; 3 Alta. L.R.(3d) 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 13].

Northland Bank (Liquidation) v. Hongkong Bank of Canada (1991), 120 A.R. 296; 8 W.A.C. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 14].

Suncor Inc. v. Canada Wire and Cable Ltd., [1993] 3 W.W.R. 630; 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 182 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 15].

Jager Industries Inc. v. Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. et al. (2000), 273 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 16].

Takeda Estate et al. v. Rosen et al. (1998), 238 A.R. 387 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 17].

Gerling Global General Insurance Co. et al. v. Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd. et al. (1998), 230 A.R. 39; 64 Alta. L.R.(3d) 174 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 18].

Silver Recovery Systems of Canada Ltd. v. WMJ Metals Ltd. (1989), 103 A.R. 252 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 19].

Belanger (R.D.) & Associates Ltd. et al. v. Stadium Corp. of Ontario Ltd. and Bitove Corp. (1991), 57 O.A.C. 81; 5 O.R.(3d) 778 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 21].

Abramovic et al. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd. (1991), 52 O.A.C. 1; 6 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1992), 140 N.R. 238; 56 O.A.C. 138; 8 O.R.(3d) xiii (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 22].

Hanson v. Bank of Nova Scotia et al. (1994), 74 O.A.C. 145; 19 O.R.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 23].

Merner v. Flinn et al. - see Merner v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund.

Merner v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan Trust Fund (2001), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 315; 627 A.P.R. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 24].

Nelson v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. et al., [2000] O.T.C. 187 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 25].

Spasic Estate v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al. (2000), 135 O.A.C. 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 26].

Dykun v. Odishaw et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 392; 253 W.A.C. 392 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2002), 289 N.R. 194; 299 A.R. 317; 266 W.A.C. 317 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 27].

K.F. et al. v. White (2001), 142 O.A.C. 116; 3 C.P.C.(5th) 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 28].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 272 N.R. 1, 149 O.A.C. 1; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 29].

Joudrey v. Swissair Transport Co. (2001), 197 N.S.R.(2d) 312; 616 A.P.R. 312 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 30].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Kopman (2000), 130 O.A.C. 191 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 31].

British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214; 87 N.R. 241; 71 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 220 A.P.R. 93; [1988] 6 W.W.R. 577; 31 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 53 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 30 C.P.C.(2d) 221; 88 C.L.L.C. 14,047, refd to. [para. 73, footnote 32].

Househ v. Hamm, [2001] A.R. Uned. 295 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 33].

Mudarth v. Canada Safeway Ltd. et al., [2001] A.R. Uned. 96 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 34].

Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 286 (C.A.), revd. (2001), 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 35].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; 29 C.C.L.T. 97; 8 C.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 37].

ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., [2001] N.R. Uned. 33 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 38].

R. v. Osolin, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 595; 162 N.R. 1; 38 B.C.A.C. 81; 62 W.A.C. 81; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 478; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 26 C.R.(4th) 1; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Maxwell Taylor's Restaurants Inc. et al. v. Carcasole et al. (1990), 104 A.R. 87; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 376 (Q.B.), affd. (1990), 108 A.R. 105; 75 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 41].

Leading Investments Ltd. v. Liebig (H.W.) & Co., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 70; 65 N.R. 209; 14 O.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 44].

Sobeys Stores Ltd. v. Yeomans and Labour Standards Tribunal (N.S.) et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 238; 92 N.R. 179; 90 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 230 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 45].

Canadian Pacific Hotels Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 711; 77 N.R. 161; 21 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 89, footnote 46].

304498 B.C. Ltd. v. Garibaldi Whistler Development Co. (1989), 62 D.L.R.(4th) 252 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90, footnote 47].

Anchorage Management Services Ltd. v. 465404 B.C. Inc. et al. (1999), 132 B.C.A.C. 72; 215 W.A.C. 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90, footnote 48].

Jen-Den Investments Ltd. v. Northwest Farms et al. (1977), 81 D.L.R.(3d) 355 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 49].

Kevel Holdings Ltd. v. 408230 Alberta Ltd. (1994), 148 A.R. 286 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 104, footnote 50].

Pinnel's Case (1602), 5 Co. Rep. 117a, refd to. [para. 107, footnote 52].

Foakes v. Beer (1884), 9 App. Cas. 605 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 53].

Robichaud v. Caisse populaire de Pokemouche ltée (1990), 105 N.B.R.(2d) 227; 264 A.P.R. 227 (C.A.), dist. [para. 112, footnote 54].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 159(2) [para. 58].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 113 [para. 106, footnote 51]; 114 [paras. 106, 107, footnotes 51, 53]; 115, 129, 130, 131 [para. 106, footnote 51]; 836 [para. 82, footnote 40]; 837 [para. 88, footnote 43].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2000), p. 125 [para. 64, footnote 11].

Stevenson, W.A., and Côté, J.E., Civil Procedure Guide (1996), p. 716 [para. 64, footnote 11].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Contracts (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 677, 678, 679 [para. 87, footnote 42].

Counsel:

John A. Weir, Q.C. (Weir Bowen), for Nader Ghermezian;

Michael J. Penny (Emery Jamieson), for Corey Developments Inc. and Allan Brown.

This appeal was heard by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 29, 2001.