Lobban v. Wilkins et al.

• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Judge: Yamauchi, J.
• Citation: (2014), 598 A.R. 245 (QB),2014 ABQB 653
• Date: 24 October 2014

Lobban v. Wilkins (2014), 598 A.R. 245 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. NO.033

Guy Lobban (plaintiff) v. Roger Wilkins and Keith Baillie (defendants)

Roger Wilkins (plaintiff by counterclaim) v. Guy Lobban (defendant by counterclaim)

(0704 00848; 2014 ABQB 653)

Indexed As: Lobban v. Wilkins et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Grande Prairie

Yamauchi, J.

October 24, 2014.

Summary:

Wilkins agreed to sell a 40 acre portion of land to Lobban for use as an airstrip for $40,000. Under the agreement, Lobban was responsible for applying for subdivision. Wilkins was to provide the required consents. Baillie told Wilkins that the property was worth more than $40,000. Wilkins cancelled the subdivision application. Lobban sued Wilkins and Baillie. Lobban acquired hangar facilities 40 km away. As damages, he sought the $5,000 deposit that had been paid to Wilkins and compensation for his travel time (2 to 3 trips per week) for recreational use of his aircraft at the hangar, based on his hourly wage of $83 and mileage at $1.20 per kilometre. Wilkins counterclaimed, asserting that the $40,000 purchase price was grossly disproportionate to the property's value and claiming rescission of the contract with punitive or exemplary damages of $200,000 and costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action. Wilkins had breached the contract. Baillie had induced the breach. Lobban was awarded damages against Wilkins and Baillie of $39,944, based on an 80 km round trip twice a week at $.60 per kilometre. To that amount was added the $5,000 deposit and the $1,300 that was paid to the county for the subdivision application. The counterclaim was dismissed.

Contracts - Topic 812

Parties - Capacity - Setting aside contracts for lack of capacity - Evidence - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Contracts - Topic 1601

Formation of contract - Mistake, misunderstanding or misrepresentation - Plea of non est factum - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Contracts - Topic 3523

Performance or breach - Breach - What constitutes a breach - [See both Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Contracts - Topic 4021

Remedies for breach - Damages - General - Wilkins agreed to sell a 40 acre portion of land to Lobban for use as an airstrip for $40,000 - Under the agreement, Lobban was responsible for applying for subdivision - Wilkins was to provide the required consents - Baillie told Wilkins that the property was worth more than $40,000 - Wilkins cancelled the subdivision application - Lobban sued Wilkins and Baillie - Lobban acquired hangar facilities 40 km away - As damages, he sought the $5,000 deposit that had been paid to Wilkins and compensation for his travel time (2 to 3 trips per week) for recreational use of his aircraft at the hangar, based on his hourly wage of $83 and mileage at $1.20 per kilometre - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - Lobban's claims for damages regarding his wage rate and mileage were unreasonable - No one got paid for leisure time - His claimed mileage rate was exorbitant - Lobban was awarded damages against Wilkins and Baillie of $39,944, based on an 80 km round trip twice a week at $.60 per kilometre - To that amount was added the $5,000 deposit and the $1,300 that Lobban paid for the subdivision application - See paragraphs 67 to 73.

Contracts - Topic 9350

Unconscionable transactions relief - Conditions for relief - What constitutes harsh and unconscionable - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 1150

Contracts - Sale of land - Breach by seller - [See Contracts - Topic 4021 ].

Damages - Topic 1003

Mitigation - General principles - Mitigation - What constitutes - Wilkins agreed to sell a 40 acre portion of land to Lobban for use as an airstrip for $40,000 - Under the agreement, Lobban was responsible for applying for subdivision - Wilkins was to provide the required consents - Baillie told Wilkins that the property was worth more than $40,000 - Wilkins cancelled the subdivision application - Lobban sued Wilkins and Baillie - Lobban acquired hangar facilities 40 km away - As damages, he sought the $5,000 deposit that had been paid to Wilkins and compensation for his travel time (2 to 3 trips per week) for recreational use of his aircraft at the hangar - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - Lobban had mitigated his losses by acquiring hangar facilities approximately 40 km away - Neither Wilkins nor Baillie had presented evidence that there was land closer that could have served Lobban's needs - Nor had they challenged the fact that the closest facilities that served those needs were 40 km away - See paragraphs 68 and 69.

Damages - Topic 1065

Mitigation - In particular matters - Sale of land - [See Damages - Topic 1003 ].

Damages - Topic 4044

Interference with economic relations - Interference with business relations - Measure of damages - [See Contracts - Topic 4021 ].

Damages - Topic 6100

Contracts - Sale of land - Breach by seller - Measure of damages - [See Contracts - Topic 4021 ].

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 603

Undue influence - General principles - What constitutes undue influence - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 877

The contract - Uncertainty - Subdivision approval to be obtained - [See first Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 907

The contract - Essential terms and conditions precedent - Conditions precedent - [See first Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 1965

The contract - Breach of contract - What constitutes - Wilkins agreed to sell a 40 acre portion of land to Lobban for use as an airstrip for $40,000 - Under the agreement, Lobban was responsible for applying for subdivision - Wilkins was to provide the required consents - Baillie told Wilkins that the property was worth more than $40,000 - Wilkins cancelled the subdivision application - Lobban sued Wilkins and Baillie - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - Wilkins breached the contract - Obtaining subdivision approval was not a condition precedent to the existence of the contract's obligations - The fact that the new parcel could not be described until subdivision approval was obtained was not a bar to the contract's enforceability - The court rejected Wilkins' argument that the contract was void under s. 94(1) of the Land Titles Act because it dealt with the sale of a lot that had no registered subdivision plan - Under s. 94(3)(b), Wilkins could not rely on s. 94 as he was obligated under the contract to provide the consents required to have the subdivision registered - See paragraphs 46 to 50.

Sale of Land - Topic 1965

The contract - Breach of contract - What constitutes - Wilkins agreed to sell a 40 acre portion of land to Lobban for use as an airstrip for $40,000 - Under the agreement, Lobban was responsible for applying for subdivision - Wilkins was to provide the required consents - Baillie told Wilkins that the property was worth more than $40,000 - Wilkins cancelled the subdivision application - Lobban sued Wilkins and Baillie - Wilkins argued that Lobban had misrepresented the contract as an agreement to lease, rather than to sell, the land and that he was entitled to rescission on that basis - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - Wilkins breached the contract - The court rejected Wilkins' arguments based in lack of capacity, non est factum and undue influence - Wilkins knew what he was signing - The contract reflected the parties' agreement - Wilkins entered into the agreement freely and voluntarily - The transaction was not unconscionable - There was no evidence that Wilkins thought anything was wrong with the agreement until Baillie told him he should have received more for the property - This was a case of seller's remorse - See paragraphs 51 to 57.

Sale of Land - Topic 2025

The contract - Validity of the contract - Consensus - Misunderstanding - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 3753

Contract - Discharge, rescission or annulment - Grounds - Misrepresentation - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 3761

Contract - Discharge, rescission or annulment - Grounds - Non est factum - [See second Sale of Land - Topic 1965 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 7404

Remedies - General - Damages - [See Contracts - Topic 4021 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 7414

Remedies - General - Mitigation - Duty of injured party - [See Damages - Topic 1003 ].

Sale of Land - Topic 8774

Remedies of purchaser - Damages - Measure of - [See Contracts - Topic 4021 ].

Torts - Topic 5208

Interference with economic relations - Contracts - Inducing or procuring breach of contract - Wilkins agreed to sell a 40 acre portion of land to Lobban for use as an airstrip for $40,000 - Under the agreement, Lobban was responsible for applying for subdivision - Wilkins was to provide the required consents - Baillie told Wilkins that the property was worth more than $40,000 - Wilkins cancelled the subdivision application - Lobban sued Wilkins and Baillie - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action - Wilkins breached the contract - Baillie had induced Wilkins to breach the contract - Baillie objected to the property's use as an airstrip - He suggested that Wilkins withdraw the subdivision application, which resulted in Wilkins' breaching the contract - Baillie's primary objective was to prevent Lobban from acquiring the property - Baillie had no bona fide belief that Wilkins' contractual obligations would not be infringed - There was no justification for his inducing Wilkins to breach the contract - See paragraphs 58 to 66.

Cases Noticed:

216927 Alberta Ltd. v. Fox Creek (Town) (1990), 104 A.R. 321; 72 Alta. L.R.(2d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Steiner et al. v. E.H.D. Investments Ltd., [1977] 6 W.W.R. 308; 6 A.R. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Dynamic Transport Ltd. v. O.K. Detailing Ltd., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1072; 20 N.R. 500; 9 A.R. 308, refd to. [para. 46].

Carruthers et al. v. Tioga Holdings Ltd. (1999), 237 A.R. 96; 197 W.A.C. 96; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 507 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Mylonas Enterprises Ltd. v. Foundation Place Inc. et al. (2013), 565 A.R. 55; 2013 ABQB 385, refd to. [para. 46].

Hittinger v. Turgeon, [2005] A.R. Uned. 652; 2005 ABQB 257, refd to. [para. 51].

Marvco Color Research Ltd. v. Harris and Harris, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 774; 45 N.R. 302, refd to. [para. 53].

Goodman Estate v. Geffen, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353; 127 N.R. 241; 125 A.R. 81; 14 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 54].

Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc. (2000), 271 A.R. 280; 234 W.A.C. 280; 2000 ABCA 307, refd to. [para. 58].

369413 Alberta Ltd. v. Pocklington - see Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc.

Delcor Painting & Flooring Ltd. v. 20/20 Properties Inc. et al. (2009), 486 A.R. 114; 2009 ABQB 670, refd to. [para. 67].

Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 943; 277 N.R. 1; 153 O.A.C. 341; 2001 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 67].

Statutes Noticed:

Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-4, sect. 94(1) [para. 49]; sect. 94(3)(b) [para. 50].

Counsel:

Murray L. Engelking (Engelking Wood), for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim;

Emmanuel Alade (City Law Offices), for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Roger Wilkins;

Soni Nayak (Snyder & Associates LLP), for the defendant, Keith Baillie.

This action and counterclaim were heard on September 22 and 23, 2014, by Yamauchi, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Grande Prairie, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on October 24, 2014.