Lehmann (Peter) Wines Ltd. v. Vintage West Wine Marketing Inc. et al., 2015 ABQB 481

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 21, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABQB 481;[2015] A.R. TBEd. AU.013

Lehmann Wines Ltd. v. Vintage West Wine, [2015] A.R. TBEd. AU.013

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. AU.013

Peter Lehmann Wines Ltd. (applicant) v. Vintage West Wine Marketing Inc., Alberta Gaming & Liquor Commission, and Connect Logistics Services Inc. (respondent)

(1503 07515; 2015 ABQB 481)

Indexed As: Lehmann (Peter) Wines Ltd. v. Vintage West Wine Marketing Inc. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

July 29, 2015.

Summary:

Peter Lehmann Wines Ltd. (PLW) was a winery in Australia. PLW sought a declaration and orders that would have the effect of implementing a new product distribution agency relationship over the objections of its former distributor in Alberta, Vintage West Wine Marketing Inc. (Vintage). The relief sought included an order requiring the Alberta Gaming & Liquor Commission (AGLC) to recognize PLW's new agency relationship with Phillippe Dandurand Wines Ltd. (Dandurand). In its Originating Application, PLW sought declarations that: 1) Dandurand was PLW's agent for the sale of its wine in Alberta; 2) Vintage was not PLW's agent; and 3) Vintage owed PLW monies due to its default on valid and subsisting conditional sales agreements with PLW. During the interval between PLW filing the Originating Application and the hearing of the application, Vintage paid PLW everything PLW was entitled to for the wine under Vintage's control. In addition to the declaratory relief, PLW sought an order that Vintage sell its entire PLW inventory to Dandurand at Vintage's full retail price.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed PLW's application. PLW asked the court to compel the AGLC to recognize Dandurand as PLW's agent in place of Vintage. Such relief was in the nature of mandamus. Mandamus would be an inappropriate remedy. The court also dismissed PLW's application for an order (in the nature of a mandatory injunction) compelling the AGLC to implement an agency representation transfer from Vintage to Dandurand. Further, with respect to injunctive relief against Vintage, PLW could point to no legal duty on the part of Vintage to sell the inventory of PLW product owned by Vintage to PLW or Dandurand or at all. As a result, the court was without jurisdiction to order any sale as requested by PLW. Finally, a declaration regarding PLW's agency relationship with Vintage would not compel the AGLC to effect an agency transfer from Vintage to Dandurand. The procedure for an agency transfer was detailed in AGLC's policy. A declaration of this nature would simply be a collateral attempt by PLW to achieve indirectly what it could not achieve directly. The declaratory order sought would not appear to serve any meaningful purpose.

Administrative Law - Topic 3553

Judicial review - Mandamus - Conditions precedent - Existence of duty - See paragraphs 41 to 55.

Administrative Law - Topic 3751

Judicial review - Mandamus - Mandamus to public officials and boards - General - See paragraphs 41 to 55.

Administrative Law - Topic 3804

Judicial review - Mandamus - Practice - Form of commencement of action - See paragraphs 46 to 49.

Courts - Topic 2004

Jurisdiction - General principles - Inherent jurisdiction - See paragraph 83 to 93.

Equity - Topic 602

Equitable jurisdiction - Exercise of - See paragraph 93.

Injunctions - Topic 301

Jurisdiction - General - See paragraphs 67 to 73.

Injunctions - Topic 792

Granting an injunction - Persons against whom an injunction will be granted - Crown - Agent of - See paragraphs 56 to 66.

Injunctions - Topic 2301

Mandatory injunctions - General - See paragraphs 56 to 66.

Liquor Control - Topic 4503

Distribution - General - Distribution agent - See paragraphs 41 to 66 and 74 to 79.

Practice - Topic 5652

Judgments - Declaratory judgments - When available - See paragraphs 74 to 79.

Counsel:

Thomas V. Duke (Miller Thomson LLP), for the applicant;

Mark Fancourt-Smith (Lawson Lundell LLP), for the respondent, Vintage West Wine Marketing Inc.;

Hillary Flaherty (Alberta Justice and Solicitor General) for the respondent, Alberta Gaming & Liquor Commission.

This application was heard on July 21, 2015, before Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on July 29, 2015.