Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Young et al., (1996) 142 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 280 (NFTD)

• Judge: Puddester, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: September 25, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (1996), 142 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 280 (NFTD)

Imperial Oil v. Young (1996), 142 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 280 (NFTD);

    445 A.P.R. 280

MLB headnote and full text

Imperial Oil Limited (plaintiff) v. James Young and King's Bridge Service Station Limited (defendants)

(1995 St. J. No. 397)

Indexed As: Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Young et al.

Newfoundland Supreme Court

Trial Division

Puddester, J.

July 9, 1996.

Summary:

Imperial Oil Ltd. and Young owned ad­joining commercial lands in the City of St. John's. For a number of years Young leased Imperial's land in connection with carrying on his business as a gasoline retailer. Young had previously operated a similar business on his own adjoining land. At all times Young used his adjoining land to carry on a motor vehicle service business. In 1985, the parties agreed to terminate the lease. Another agreement was executed whereby Imperial allowed Young to continue to park his cus­tomers' cars on Imperial's adjoining land after the end of the lease. Young gave Imperial a right of first refusal to purchase or lease his property. In 1994, Imperial advised Young that the parking must cease due to Imperial's need to decontaminate the soil and to preclude further contamination. Young claimed that he had a permanent continuing right to park the vehicles on the land and refused to stop using it for that purpose. Imperial applied for an order di­recting Young to remove the vehicles parked on its land and for an injunction to restrain further use. Young applied for an order directing Imperial to remove any barriers interfering with the parking and for an order directing Imperial to reasonably delineate and provide such parking area.

In 1996, the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed Imperial's application and gave Young 60 days to remove the vehicles and to stop using Im­perial's land as a parking lot. Young's cross-application was dismissed.

Contracts - Topic 7433

Interpretation - Ambiguity - Contra proferentem rule - Young leased land from Imperial and operated a motor vehicle service business on adjacent land - Imperial and Young agreed to terminate the lease - Imperial's and Young's lawyers negotiated an agreement which gave Young the right to continue parking his customers' vehicles on Imperial's land - The agreement was not complex - There was no time limit - Nine years later Imperial applied to terminate Young's use of the land - Young claimed a permanent easement under the agreement - Young submitted that in interpreting the agree­ment, the contra proferentem rule should be applied against Imperial because its lawyers had drafted the agreement - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, stated that "the scope for deciding this matter on the basis of the application of the contra proferentem rule is very properly restricted to that of a 'last resort'" - See paragraph 37.

Evidence - Topic 6752

Parol evidence rule - Interpretation of a legal act - Evidence of surrounding cir­cumstances - Where document ambiguous - Young leased land from Imperial - Young operated a motor vehicle service business on adjacent land - Imperial and Young agreed to terminate the lease - They executed an agreement giving Young the right to continue parking his customers' vehicles on Imperial's land - Nine years later Imperial applied to terminate Young's use of the land - Young submitted that the agreement granted him an ease­ment - Young also pleaded that Imperial was estopped from terminating his use - Young's affidavit contained material re­garding the events, circumstances and negotiations leading to the execution of the agreement - Imperial claimed the material should be excluded under the parol evi­dence rule - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed portions of the disputed material to be considered - See paragraphs 11 to 32.

Real Property - Topic 7003

Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - General principles - Uses which may constitute an easement - Young sold Im­perial's petroleum products on land leased from Imperial - Young also operated a motor vehicle service business on adjacent land - Imperial and Young agreed to terminate the lease and to execute an agreement giving Young the right to con­tinue parking his customers' vehicles on Imperial's land "on a basis mutually satis­factory" - Nine years later Imperial applied for an order directing Young to cease using its land - Young submitted that the agreement granted him an ease­ment - The Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, ruled that "the authorities cited [were] persuasive that there is no impediment in law to the creation of a right to park vehicles by way of an ease­ment over a servient property in favour of adjoining, dominant land" - See paragraph 76.

Real Property - Topic 7003

Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - General principles - Uses which may constitute an easement - Young sold Im­perial's petroleum products on land leased from Imperial - Young also operated a motor vehicle service business on adjacent land - In 1985, Imperial and Young agreed to terminate the lease and to execute an agreement giving Young the right to continue parking his customers' vehicles on Imperial's land "on a basis mutually satisfactory" - Young used only a portion of Imperial's land - In 1994, Imperial informed Young that he could no longer use the land for parking - Young submitted that the agreement granted him an easement that could not be terminated - In 1996, the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that Young did not have an easement and ordered him to cease using the land within 60 days - See paragraphs 50 to 124.

Real Property - Topic 7250

Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Licences - Revocation - Young sold Imperial's petroleum products on land leased from Imperial - Young also oper­ated a motor vehicle service business on adjacent land - In 1985, Imperial and Young agreed to terminate the lease and to execute an agreement giving Young the right to continue parking his customers' vehicles on Imperial's land "on a basis mutually satisfactory" - Young used only a portion of Imperial's land - In 1994, Imperial informed Young that he could no longer use the land for parking - Young submitted that, inter alia, the agreement granted him an irrevocable licence - In 1996, the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that Young had a contractual licence revocable on six months' notice - The court ordered Young to cease using the land within 60 days - See paragraphs 125 to 178.

Real Property - Topic 7250

Easements, licences and prescriptive rights - Licences - Revocation - Estoppel - Young sold Imperial's petroleum products on land leased from Imperial - Young also oper­ated a motor vehicle service business on adjacent land - In 1985, Imperial and Young agreed to terminate the lease and to execute an agreement giving Young the right to continue parking his customers' vehicles on Imperial's land "on a basis mutually satisfactory" - Young used only a portion of Imperial's land - In 1994, Imperial informed Young that he could no longer use the land for parking - Young submitted that, inter alia, Imperial was estopped from revoking his licence because the parking was necessary for the growth of his business - In 1996, the Newfoundland Supreme Court, Trial Divi­sion, held that Imperial was not estopped from revoking the licence - See para­graphs 179 to 241.

Cases Noticed:

Goss v. Nugent (Lord) (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 58; 110 E.R. 713, refd to. [para. 19].

Saskatoon Sand & Gravel Ltd. v. Steve et al. (1973), 40 D.L.R.(3d) 248 (Sask. Q.B.), affd. (1979), 97 D.L.R.(3d) 685 (Sask. C.A.), consd. [para. 34].

Aircraft Maintenance Enterprises Inc. v. Aerospace Realties (1986) Ltd. et al. (1992), 94 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 298 A.P.R. 271 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 61].

Copeland v. Greenhalf, [1952] Ch. 488, consd. [para. 61].

Carew v. Rockwood (1993), 112 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 299; 350 A.P.R. 299 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 64].

London and Blenheim Estates Ltd. v. Lad­broke Retail Parks Ltd., [1992] W.L.R. 1278 (Ch. Div.), consd. [para. 66].

Bilkus v. London Borough of Redbridge (1968), 207 E.G. 803, consd. [para. 68].

Laviolette v. Gallant (1971), 4 N.B.R.(2d) 18 (C.A.), consd. [para. 71].

Murphy v. Coughlan (1978), 16 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 60; 42 A.P.R. 60 (Nfld. C.A.), dist. [para. 74].

Toscano (City) v. Dorion (1965), 51 D.L.R.(2d) 298 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 78].

Blankstein and Fages v. Walsh (1989), 58 Man.R.(2d) 269 (C.A.), affing. (1988), 55 Man.R.(2d) 125 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 79].

Murray v. Sullivan (1981), 35 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 132; 99 A.P.R. 132 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 79].

Rideout v. Rideout (1984), 48 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 44; 142 A.P.R. 44 (Nfld. Dist. Ct.), consd. [para. 85].

Affleck v. Gue (1967), 61 D.L.R.(2d) 665 (N.S.T.D.), consd. [para. 86].

Meagher v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (1912), 42 N.B.R. 46 (S.C., en banc), consd. [para. 91].

Parker v. Parker (1989), 100 N.B.R.(2d) 361; 252 A.P.R. 361 (T.D.), consd. [para. 94].

Wyatt v. Franklin (1993), 122 N.S.R.(2d) 252; 338 A.P.R. 252 (S.C.), consd. [para. 99].

Gypsum Carrier Inc. v. R. (1977), 78 D.L.R.(3d) 175 (F.C.T.D.), consd. [para. 101].

Alberta Association of Psychologists v. Schepanovich (1991), 45 C.P.C.(2d) 108 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 108].

Bratt v. Malden (Township), [1927] 1 D.L.R. 1116 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 132].

Gill Brothers v. Mission Sawmills Ltd., [1944] 3 W.W.R. 310 (B.C.S.C.), affd. [1945] 2 W.W.R. 337 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1945] 4 D.L.R. 449 (S.C.C.), consd. [paras. 138, 140].

Robinson v. Galt Chemical Products Ltd., [1933] O.W.N. 502 (C.A.), consd. [para. 143].

Boone v. Eyre (1779), 1 Hy. Bl. 273, consd. [para. 159].

Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., [1947] K.B. 130, consd. [para. 179].

Combe v. Combe, [1951] 1 All E.R. 767 (C.A.), consd. [para. 179].

Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. (In Liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1981] 3 All E.R. 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 186].

Plimmer et al. v. Wellington Corp. (1884), 9 App. Cas. 699 (P.C.), dist. [para. 191].

Ramsden v. Dyson (1866), L.R. 1 H.L. 129 (H.L.), consd. [para. 192].

Hopgood v. Brown, [1955] 1 All E.R. 550 (C.A.), dist. [para. 194].

Inwards et al. v. Baker, [1965] 1 All E.R. 446 (C.A.), dist. [para. 198].

Chandler v. Kerley, [1978] 2 All E.R. 942 (C.A.), consd. [para. 201].

Stiles v. Tod Mountain Development Ltd. (1992), 22 R.P.R.(2d) 143 (B.C.S.C.), dist. [para. 210].

Lewvest Ltd. v. Scotia Towers Ltd. et al. (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 239 (Nfld. T.D.), consd. [para. 220].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anger and Honsberger, The Law of Real Prop­erty (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 929 [para. 116].

Black's Law Dictionary [paras. 107, 161]; p. 1197 [paras. 105, 106].

Cheshire and Burns, Modern Law of Real Property (14th Ed. 1988), p. 495 [para. 116].

Chitty on Contracts (26th Ed. 1989), pp. 514, 516, 518, 520, 521 [para. 15]; 528 [para. 33]; 533 to 534 [para. 16]; 542 [para. 23]; 545, 546 [para. 25]; 546 to 547 [para. 28].

Garner, Brian, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (1987) [para. 161].

George and George, The Sale of Flats (5th Ed.), generally [para. 70].

Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 11, p. 235 [para. 91].

Megarry, Robert E., and Thompson, M.P., Manual of the Law of Real Property (7th Ed. 1993), pp. 403 [para. 117]; 428 to 429 [para. 127]; 429 [para. 181]; 435 [para. 183].

Odgers, Construction of Deeds and Stat­utes (5th Ed. 1967), pp. 210, 211 [para. 159].

Perell, The Fusion of Law and Equity (1990), p. 111 [para. 186].

Sara, Colin, Boundaries and Easements (1991), pp. 176 [para. 118]; 315 [para. 70].

Snell, Principles of Equity (29th Ed. 1990), pp. 573 to 579 [para. 185].

Sopinka, John, and Lederman, Sydney N., The Law of Evi­dence in Civil Cases, pp. 267 to 268 [para. 16]; 270 to 271 [para. 18]; 272 [paras. 21, 25].

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases (5th Ed. 1986) [para. 161].

Ziff, Bruce H., Principles of Property Law (1993), pp. 235 [para. 141]; 235 to 236 [para. 185]; 288 [para. 57]; 289 [para. 116]; 291 [para. 101].

Counsel:

Janet Henley-Andrews, for the plaintiff;

Michael Crosbie, for the defendants.

This application was heard on September 25, 1995, before Puddester, J., of the New­foundland Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment which was filed on July 9, 1996.