Henderson v. Knogler, (2009) 330 Sask.R. 256 (QB)

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 11, 2009
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2009), 330 Sask.R. 256 (QB);2009 SKQB 96

Henderson v. Knogler (2009), 330 Sask.R. 256 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.012

Ardel Henderson (plaintiff) v. Eric Knogler and Teresa Knogler (defendants)

(2005 Q.B. No. 244; 2009 SKQB 96)

Indexed As: Henderson v. Knogler

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Prince Albert

R.S. Smith, J.

March 11, 2009.

Summary:

The vendor owned a lakefront lot (Lot C). As per a proposed subdivision plan, he intended to subdivide Lot C into little Lot C and Lot K. He sold Lot C to the purchasers. The legal description in the purchase and sale contract mistakenly described the original Lot C, rather than little Lot C. The vendor sought rectification of the contract. The purchasers submitted that they agreed to purchase a lot larger than little Lot C, but admittedly smaller than the original Lot C. The purchasers argued that there was no consensus ad idem and the vendor's remedy for mutual mistake was rescission or a declaration that the contract was void, not rectification.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the vendor was entitled to rectification. The court accepted that the purchasers were shown the proposed subdivision plan, to be registered concurrently with their deed, and knew that they were purchasing little Lot C, not some bigger lot.

Deeds and Documents - Topic 5057

Rectification - When available - Mistake - Mutual - [See Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059 ].

Deeds and Documents - Topic 5059

Rectification - When available - Mistake - Common - The vendor owned a lakefront lot (Lot C) - As per a proposed subdivision plan to be registered, Lot C was to be subdivided into little Lot C and Lot K, with little Lot C sold to the purchasers - The vendor's lawyer neglected to register the subdivision plan - The legal description in the purchase and sale contract mistakenly described the original Lot C, rather than little Lot C - The vendor sought rectification of the contract - The purchasers submitted that they agreed to purchase a lot larger than little Lot C, but admittedly smaller than the original Lot C - The purchasers argued that there was no consensus ad idem and the vendor's remedy for mutual mistake was rescission or a declaration that the contract was void, not rectification - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the vendor was entitled to rectification - The purchasers were shown the proposed subdivision plan, which was to be registered concurrently with their deed - They knew that they were purchasing little Lot C, not some bigger lot - This was a common mistake (both parties under same mistake), leading to rectification, rather than a mutual mistake (parties under differing mistakes) which would lead to rescission or a void contract for lack of consensus ad idem - See paragraphs 47 to 66.

Cases Noticed:

Central Canada Potash Co. v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General), [1974] 6 W.W.R. 374 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant (1879), 11 Ch. D. 918, refd to. [para. 44].

Sass v. St. Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association of Winnipeg, [1936] 4 D.L.R. 474 (Man. C.A.), affd. [1937] S.C.R. 415, refd to. [para. 44].

Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. B.C. Hydro & Power Authority, [1972] 3 W.W.R. 35 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Mining Ltd. v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. (1990), 80 Sask.R. 184 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Bercovici v. Palmer (1966), 58 W.W.R.(N.S.) 111; 59 D.L.R.(2d) 513 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

MacKey v. Goebel and Goebel (1983), 25 Sask.R. 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 48].

United Grain Growers Ltd. v. Agri-Builders (Regina) Ltd. (1984), 33 Sask.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

Helmle Estate v. McGillivray (1996), 143 Sask.R. 63 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 49].

Cozart v. Cozart (2007), 296 Sask.R. 183; 2007 SKQB 160, refd to. [para. 50].

Sylvan Lake Golf & Tennis Club Ltd. v. Performance Industries Ltd. and O'Connor (No. 2), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 678; 283 N.R. 233; 299 A.R. 201; 266 W.A.C. 201; 2002 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 58].

Landswest School Division No. 123 v. Klein (2005), 267 Sask.R. 310; 2005 SKQB 272, refd to. [para. 67].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (5th Ed. 2006), pp. 837, 838 [para. 57].

Counsel:

Lyle W. Zuk, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

William P. Langen, for the defendants.

This matter was heard before R.S. Smith, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Prince Albert, who delivered the following judgment on March 11, 2009.