Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Whissell Enterprises Ltd., (1985) 62 A.R. 321 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1985
• Citations: (1985), 62 A.R. 321 (QBM)

Imperial Oil v. Whissell Ent. Ltd. (1985), 62 A.R. 321 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Imperial Oil Limited v. Whissell Enterprises Ltd.

(No. 8303 40259)

Indexed As: Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Whissell Enterprises Ltd.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

June 26, 1985.

Summary:

Imperial contracted to sell fuel products to Whissell. Imperial applied for summary judgment for the amount allegedly owing on Whissell's account.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench withheld his decision for three weeks, to allow Whissell to apply to amend its pleadings to raise issues argued at trial, but not included in its defence.

Courts - Topic 126

Stare decisis - Courts of superior jurisdiction - Decisions binding on provincial courts - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "lower courts must follow the views of the Supreme Court of Canada on points of law though it may not have been absolutely necessary for that court to have decided the point of law. A considered view of law by that court must be followed without semantic games about dicta v. ratio" - See paragraph 83.

Courts - Topic 2121

Jurisdiction - Trial jurisdiction - General - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reiterated that the court's jurisdiction to award judgment was restricted to the relief sought on the issues placed before it by the pleadings - See paragraph 91.

Evidence - Topic 6204

Parol evidence rule - Evidence offered to contradict or explain written agreement - A written contract between Imperial and a customer provided a formula for and a method of amending discounts - The customer sought to introduce evidence that Imperial, during the negotiation period before execution of the contract, had promised greater discounts than provided for in the contract - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the discount provisions of the contract were clear and unambiguous, therefore the parol evidence sought to be introduced was inadmissible as an attempt to vary the written contract - See paragraphs 11 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

Goss v. Nugent, 110 E.R. 713, refd to. [para. 11].

Ellis v. Abell (1884-85), 10 O.A.R. 226, refd to. [para. 12].

Forman v. The Union Trust Company, [1927] S.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

Avco Delta Corporation v. MacKay, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 4; 4 A.R. 565 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Anderson v. Chaba, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 631; 7 A.R. 469 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Northwestern Mechanical Installations v. Yukon Construction (1982), 37 A.R. 132; 20 Alta. L.R.(2d) 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal, [1969] S.C.R. 515, refd to. [para. 36].

Eastcal Developments v. Whissell Enterprises (1981), 25 A.R. 92 (C.A.), appld. [para. 74].

Creditel of Canada v. Terrace Corporation (1984), 50 A.R. 311 (C.A.), folld. [para. 75].

Gallen v. Allstate Grain Co., 9 D.L.R.(4th) 496 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Zackheim, 3 D.L.R.(4th) 760 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Bauer v. Bank of Montreal, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 102; 32 N.R. 191, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70, appld. [para. 82].

Royal Bank of Canada v. King (1982), 39 A.R. 8; 21 Alta. L.R.(2d) 336 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 84].

District 18, United Mine Workers of America v. Cardinal River Coals (1985), 58 A.R. 371 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

McDonald v. Fellows (1979), 17 A.R. 330; 105 D.L.R.(3d) 434 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Counsel:

G. Bowker, for the plaintiff;

H. Durocher, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 26, 1985.