Hamilton v. Knight, 2015 MBQB 171

• Judge: Menzies, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2015 MBQB 171;(2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 296 (QB)

Hamilton v. Knight (2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 296 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.017

Peter Hamilton and Miranda Hamilton (plaintiffs) v. Gordon Knight and Joyce Knight (defendants)

Gordon Knight and Joyce Knight (plaintiffs by counterclaim) v. Peter Hamilton and Miranda Hamilton (defendants by counterclaim)

(CI 13-02-02923; 2015 MBQB 171)

Indexed As: Hamilton v. Knight

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Brandon Centre

Menzies, J.

October 27, 2015.

Summary:

In 2013, the plaintiffs purchased farm property from the defendants. The agreement provided, inter alia, that "The Seller warrants there to be not less than 1,470 acres of cultivated land on the farm, normal weather conditions pertaining". On commencing farming operations, the plaintiffs became concerned that there were not 1,470 cultivated acres on the land. A surveyor found the total cultivated acreage in 2013 to be 1,287.65. Surveys based on aerial maps indicated cultivated acreage in 2007 to be 1,369 or 1,390 and 1,351 in 1995. The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. The defendants counterclaimed. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment on three issues: (1) that the price per cultivated acre was $1,500; (2) that the number of cultivated acres was less than 1,470; and (3) striking the defendants' counterclaim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted a declaration that the price per cultivated acre was $1,500 as the parties had agreed to that. The court declined to grant a declaration that the number of cultivated acres was less than 1,470. The defendants were granted time to amend their counterclaim.

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Jurisdiction or when available or when appropriate - In 2013, the plaintiffs purchased farm property from the defendants - The agreement provided, inter alia, that "The Seller warrants there to be not less than 1,470 acres of cultivated land on the farm, normal weather conditions pertaining" - On commencing farming operations, the plaintiffs became concerned that there were not 1,470 cultivated acres on the land - A surveyor found the total cultivated acreage in 2013 to be 1,287.65 - Surveys based on aerial maps indicated cultivated acreage in 2007 to be 1,369 or 1,390 and 1,351 in 1995 - The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract - On a motion for summary judgment, they sought, inter alia, a declaration that the number of cultivated acres was less than 1,470 - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench declined to grant the declaration - The plaintiffs had proven that the number of cultivated acres did not meet the 1,470 warranted by the defendants - However, there was no evidence as to "normal weather conditions" - Even if the requested declaration was made, the number of cultivated acres under normal weather conditions would still have to be determined at trial - This would require calling the same evidence as on this motion - There would be no saving of cost or time - See paragraphs 25 to 32.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Bar to application - Existence of issue to be tried - [See Practice - Topic 5702 ].

Cases Noticed:

Man-Shield Construction Ltd. v. Renaissance Station Inc. (2011), 264 Man.R.(2d) 64; 2011 MBQB 71, refd to. [para. 7].

Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014), 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

P. Sullivan, for the plaintiffs;

G. Harasymchuk, for the defendants.

This motion was heard by Menzies, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Brandon Centre, who delivered the following judgment on October 27, 2015.