Lovell v. Canada and Turchetta, (1993) 155 N.R. 98 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: February 25, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 155 N.R. 98 (FCA)

Lovell v. Can. (1993), 155 N.R. 98 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Sa Majesté La Reine (appelante-défenderesse) c. James Peter Lovell (intimé-demandeur) et Angelo Turchetta (intimé-mis-en-cause)

(A-20-90)

Indexed As: Lovell v. Canada and Turchetta

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A.

February 25, 1993.

Summary:

Lovell and Smith were the undivided co-owners of 95.7 arpents of land in the town of Léry in the Province of Quebec. Smith owed federal income tax. In February 1980, the Crown seized the land. On July 11, 1984, a judicial sale was held and Turchetta bought the land. No notice of this sale was ever sent to Lovell, who was deemed to have found out about it no later than No­vember 1985 (see paragraph 43). On Febru­ary 24, 1988, after the Quebec Superior Court declared itself without jurisdiction to hear the case, Lovell sued the Crown in the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada. Lovell wanted the judicial sale declared null, sought revendication of his share of the property and asked for damages. The Crown issued a "third party notice" and a "declaration against a third party" against Turchetta. The latter filed a counterclaim seeking damages from the Crown equivalent to the difference between the present value of the land, which he set at $200,000, and the selling price of $15,984, i.e., $184,016.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported at 37 F.T.R. 81, allowed Lovell's action in part and allowed Turchetta's counterclaim. Turchetta was ordered to return Lovell's share but was allowed to keep the share originally owned by Smith. The Crown had to pay damages to both Lovell and Turchetta. The Crown appealed the order to pay damages. Lovell cross-appealed, seeking the nullity of the entire judicial sale, punitive damages and solicitor and client costs.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed Lovell's inci­dental appeal.

Quebec Nominate Contracts - Topic 3495

Sale - Forced sales - Remedies of the evicted buyer - The Crown seized and sold land held in undivided co-ownership by Smith and Lovell because Smith had failed to pay federal income tax - Tur­chetta bought the land but was dispos­sessed of one-half of it when Lovell had the sale annulled with respect to his share - Turchetta sued the Crown seeking dam­ages from the Crown equivalent to the difference between the present value of the land, which he set at $200,000, and the selling price of $15,984, i.e., $184,016 - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the nature of the buyer's action against the prosecuting creditor and held that Turchet­ta was entitled only to one-half of the "price paid, interest, and the incidental expenses of the title" - See paragraphs 45 to 72.

Quebec Prescription - Topic 3255

Suspension of prescription - Absolute impossibility in law or in fact to act - In July 1984, the Crown seized and sold land held in undivided co-ownership by Smith and Lovell because Smith had failed to pay federal income tax - Lovell was never advised of the sale but was deemed to have known about it in November 1985 - He sued the Crown for revendication of his share and damages - Jurisdictional prob­lems delayed the filing of his action in the Trial Division of the Federal Court of Canada to February 1988 - The action was allowed - The Crown appealed the order to pay damages on the ground that the two year prescription provided by art. 2261, para. 2 C.C.L.C. barred this claim - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - See paragraphs 34 to 44.

Quebec Procedure - Topic 6940

Compulsory execution of judgments - Seizure of immovables - Vacating of sheriff's sale - Undivided co-ownership - The Crown seized and sold land held in undivided co-ownership by Smith and Lovell because Smith had failed to pay federal income tax - Turchetta bought the land at a judicial sale - Lovell sought the nullity of the entire sale on the ground that the Crown had no right to seize his share - The Federal Court of Appeal ordered that the sale be "reduced" so as not to cover Lovell's share - The court affirmed a Trial Division decision ordering the return of Lovell's share - See paragraphs 21 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

Vaillancourt v. Minister of National Reve­nue, [1991] 3 F.C. 663; 132 N.R. 133 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 22].

Club Canadien v. Beaudry (1881), 4 Legal N. 131 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Sigouin v. Ethier-Beauchamp, [1978] C.A. 387 (Que.), refd to. [para. 23].

Cartier v. Boudreault (1911), 41 C.S. 127 (Que.), refd to. [para. 23].

Davie v. Caron (1916), 25 B.R. 415 (Que.), refd to. [para. 23].

Leclerc v. Bonin, [1959] B.R. 811 (Que.), refd to. [para. 23].

Peiffer v. Lafrance, [1992] R.J.Q. 1556 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Prévost (Corporation municipale) v. Michielli, J.E. 84-69 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

St-Joseph de Coleraine (Corporation de la paroisse de) v. Colonial Chrome Co., [1933] S.C.R. 13, refd to. [para. 25].

Sofroniou v. Wasserman, [1973] C.A. 541 (Que.), refd to. [para. 25].

Austin (Corporation municipale) v. Leroux, [1975] C.A. 715 (Que.), refd to. [para. 35].

Lussier v. Marquis, [1960] B.R. 20 (Que.), refd to. [para. 36].

Oznaga v. Société d'exploitation des lote­ries et courses du Québec, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 113; 40 N.R. 7, refd to. [para. 36].

Amway Corp. v. R., [1986] 2 C.T.C. 339 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 44].

Lippé v. Saint-Luc (Ville) (1988), 19 Q.A.C. 252 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Aubé-Gilmore v. Boyce, [1991] R.D.I. 688 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 70].

Statutes Noticed:

Civil Code of Lower Canada/Code civil du Bas-Canada, art. 1056 [para. 45]; art. 1073, art. 1074 [para. 60]; art. 1075 [para. 63]; art. 1491 [para. 55]; art. 1500 [para. 55]; art. 1506 [para. 56]; art. 1508, art. 1509, art. 1510, art. 1512, art. 1513, art. 1515, art. 1516, art. 1517, art. 1519, art. 1520, art. 1521 [para. 50]; art. 1511, art. 1514 [para. 47]; art. 1518 [para. 29]; art. 1531 [para. 47]; art. 1585, art. 1591 [para. 29]; art. 1586 [para. 29]; art. 1587, art. 1591 [para. 47]; art. 2168 [para. 25]; art. 2225 [para. 37]; art. 2232, art. 2261(2) [para. 36].

Code of Civil Procedure (Que.)/Code de procédure civile (Qué.), art. 676 [para. 30]; art. 695 [para. 55]; art. 698(2) [para. 25]; art. 699 [para. 30].

Crown Liability Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, sect. 32(1) [para. 36].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 39 [para. 16].

Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985 (5th Supp.), c. 1, sect. 223 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Baudouin, J.-L., La responsabilité civile délictuelle, 1985, pp. 96 [para. 62]; 97 [para. 61]; 104, 105, 106 [para. 66]; 182 [para. 63]; 186 [para. 61].

Baudouin, Jean-Louis, Les obligations, 2 e éd., 1983, pp. 409 [para. 61]; 410, 411 [para. 64]; 413 [para. 65].

Deschamps, M., Vers une approche renou­velée de l'indivision (1984), 29 R.D. McGill 215, p. 241 [para. 23].

Faribault, L., Traité de droit civil du Qué­bec, t. 7, 1957, p. 403 [para. 71].

Faribault, Léon, Traité de droit civil du Québec, t. 11, 1961, pp. 257-258 [para. 71]; 514 [para. 59].

Langelier, F., Cours de droit civil, t. 5, 1909, pp. 61 [para. 71]; 148 [para. 57]; 150-151 [para. 50].

Marler, The Law of Real Property, 1932, p. 316 [para. 57].

Mignault, P.-B., Droit civil canadien, t. 7, 1906, pp. 98-99 [para. 71]; 106, 207 [para. 59].

Planiol et Ripert, Traité pratique de droit civil français, 1926, t. 3, Les biens, p. 274 [para. 22].

Pourcelet, M., La vente, 5e éd., 1987, p. 135 [para. 71].

Rousseau-Houle, T., Précis du droit de la vente et du louage, 1986, p. 267 [para. 59].

Tancelin, Maurice, Des obligations : contrat et responsabilité, 1984, pp. 292 [para. 61]; 320 [para. 63]; 397 [para. 61].

Counsel:

Richard Corbeil, for the Crown;

Kelvin J. MacDougall, for Lovell;

Jacques Fournier, for Turchetta.

Solicitors of Record:

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Crown;

Kelvin J. MacDougall, Montreal, Quebec, for Lovell;

Mondor, Fournier & Assoc., Montreal, Quebec, for Turchetta.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Que­bec, on February 15 and 16, 1993, by Mar­ceau, Desjardins and Décary, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on February 25, 1993, by Décary, J.A.