Henderson v. Knogler, 2011 SKQB 399

• Judge: R.S. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 25, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2011 SKQB 399;(2011), 386 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

Henderson v. Knogler (2011), 386 Sask.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.020

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

(2005 Q.B. No. 244; 2011 SKQB 399)

Indexed As: Henderson v. Knogler

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Prince Albert

R.S. Smith, J.

October 25, 2011.

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, in a judgment reported (2009), 330 Sask.R. 256, 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. The purchasers appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2010), 362 Sask.R. 118; 500 W.A.C. 118, dismissed the appeal. The vendor applied under the Planning and Development Act for an order dispensing with the purchasers' consent to the plan of subdivision that would give effect to the court's decision. The purchasers had refused to consent.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the purchasers' consent to the plan of subdivision be dispensed with. There was no justiciable reason to withhold consent. The court awarded the vendor solicitor and client costs.

Land Regulation - Topic 2726

Land use control - Subdivision control - Subdivision plan - Landowner's consent (incl. dispensing with) - 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 trial judge 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 - The vendor applied under the Planning and Development Act for an order dispensing with the purchasers' consent to the plan of subdivision that would give effect to the court's decision - The purchasers had refused to consent - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench ordered that the purchasers' consent to the plan of subdivision be dispensed with - There was no justiciable reason to withhold consent - The court stated that "the complaints raised by the [purchasers] respecting the proposed plan of subdivision had the quality of being both synthetic and disingenuous".

Counsel:

L. Zuk, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

W. Langen, for the defendants.

This application 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 October 25, 2011.