Lake Manitoba Estates Ltd. v. Communities Economic Development Fund, (1984) 27 Man.R.(2d) 118 (QB)

• Judge: Wilson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: February 28, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1984), 27 Man.R.(2d) 118 (QB)

Lake Man. Estates v. Com. Economic Dev. (1984), 27 Man.R.(2d) 118 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Lake Manitoba Estates Ltd. v. Communities Economic Development Fund

Indexed As: Lake Manitoba Estates Ltd. v. Communities Economic Development Fund

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Wilson, J.

February 28, 1984.

Summary:

In a statement of claim a plaintiff sought a declaration respecting title to land and included a prayer for general relief, but did not specifically ask for damages. After the case was litigated and a decision rendered (2 Man.R.(2d) 295), the plaintiff commenced another action for damages. The defendant applied to have the statement of claim struck out on the basis of res judicata. A referee refused the application. The defendant appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal and ordered that the action proceed to trial.

Estoppel - Topic 376

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - As a bar to subsequent proceedings - General principles - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench stated that the plea of res judicata is good where in both the former and the current actions the same issues were raised, the circumstances were the same, and the same evidence was available - The court continued that, if in the earlier action a demand was made but by mistake or by oversight not proved, that right of action cannot be revived by a subsequent demand emerging as a second action - See paragraph 2.

Estoppel - Topic 387

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - As a bar to subsequent proceedings - Matters or claims available in prior proceedings - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in discussing the plea of res judicata, stated that a plaintiff should always claim in the one action every kind of relief to which he is entitled, because he will not be allowed to bring a second action against the same defendant on the same cause of action in order to obtain relief he might have obtained in the first action - See paragraph 3.

Practice - Topic 2228

Pleadings - Striking out - Grounds - Res judicata - In a statement of claim a plaintiff included a prayer for a declaration and for general relief, but did not specifically ask for damages - After the case was litigated and a decision rendered, the plaintiff commenced another action for damages - The defendant applied to have the pleading struck on the basis of res judicata - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action to proceed to trial because there was no basis for a claim for damages at the time of the first trial and thus the matter of damages was not res judicata - See paragraphs 1, 11 to 39.

Cases Noticed:

Serrao v. Noel (1885), 15 Q.B.D. 549, refd to. [para. 3].

Nelson v. Couch (1863), 143 E.R. 721, refd to. [para. 3].

Maynard v. Maynard, [1951] S.C.R. 346, refd to. [para. 4].

Green v. Weatherill, [1929] 2 Ch. 213, refd to. [para. 4].

Blais v. Bankers Trust (1913), 5 W.W.R. 243, refd to. [para. 14].

Les Soeurs de la Charite de St. Boniface v. Forrest (1910), 16 W.L.R. 58, refd to. [para. 15].

Hamilton v. Macdonell (1910), 19 M.R. 385, refd to. [para. 16].

Campbell v. Fleming et al. (1956), 18 W.W.R.(N.S.) 475, refd to. [para. 16].

Hoffman v. McCloy (1917), 33 D.L.R. 526, refd to. [para. 19].

Toronto General Trust v. Roman, [1963] 1 O.R. 312, folld. [paras. 19, 29, 37].

McCorriston et al. v. Hayward (1980), 9 Sask.R. 379, refd to. [paras. 27, 32].

Lake Manitoba Estates Ltd. and Dumont v. Communities Economic Development Fund, 2 Man.R.(2d) 295, refd to. [para. 9].

City of Montreal v. McGee (1900), 30 S.C.R. 582, not folld. [para. 30].

Anctil v. City of Quebec (1903), 33 S.C.R. 347, not folld. [para. 30].

Churchill v. McCrae (1915), 8 W.W.R. 394, refd to. [para. 35].

Statutes Noticed:

Queen's Bench Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. C-280; C.C.S.M., c. C-280, sect. 63, rule 8 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bullen, Leake and Jacobs, Precedents and Pleadings, p. 38 [para. 33].

Counsel:

J.S. Lamont, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

D.G. Murray, for the defendant.

This appeal was heard before Wilson, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, who delivered the following decision on February 28, 1984: