Mannpar Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada, 1999 BCCA 239

• Judge: Hollinrake, Ryan and Hall, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 26, 1999
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 1999 BCCA 239;(1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 275 (CA)

Mannpar Ent. Ltd. v. Can. (1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 275 (CA);

   198 W.A.C. 275

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.014

Mannpar Enterprises Ltd. (plaintiff/appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen In Right of Canada (defendant/respondent)

(CA023207; 1999 BCCA 239)

Indexed As: Mannpar Enterprises Ltd. v. Canada

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Hollinrake, Ryan and Hall, JJ.A.

April 15, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff company held a permit to extract sand and gravel from an Indian reserve. The plaintiff sued the federal Crown for damages for alleged wrongful repudiation of the contract. The Crown counterclaimed. The trial judge, in a decision reported in [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 548; 33 B.C.L.R.(3d) 203 (additional reasons at [1998] B.C.J. No. 325), dismissed the action and the count­erclaim. The plaintiff appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Contracts - Topic 2065

Terms - Implied terms - To achieve busi­ness efficacy - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that a term could be implied in a contract if this was found necessary by a court in order to give busi­ness efficacy to the contract - A court would not, however, imply a term into a contract merely because the court might think that such term would be reasonable or would likely be more satisfactory - See paragraph 56.

Crown - Topic 1224

Contracts with Crown - Operating agree­ments - Renewals - Mannpar held a Crown permit to extract sand and gravel from an Indian reserve - A renewal clause gave Mannpar the right to renew, subject to satisfactory performance and renegotiation of the royalty rate and annual surface rental - The parties generally expected that the arrangement would extend over 10 years - Negotiations for renewal broke down when the Indian band would not consent - The British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to imply a term into the agreement that the federal Crown had a duty to negotiate a renewal in good faith - The court affirmed that "no en­forceable agreement arose out of the lan­guage of the renewal clause" - The Crown was entitled to consider its fiduciary duties to the band.

Cases Noticed:

Chaplin v. Hicks, [1911] 2 K.B. 786, refd to. [para. 22].

Hillas & Co. v. Arcos Ltd., [1932] All E.R. Rep. 494 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 23].

Griffin v. Martins (1988), 27 B.C.L.R.(2d) 152, consd. [para. 23].

Dynamic Transport Ltd. v. O.K. Detailing Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1072; 20 N.R. 500; 9 A.R. 308; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 19, consd. [para. 24].

Mesa Operating Ltd. Partnership v. Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. (1994), 149 A.R. 187; 63 W.A.C. 187; 19 Alta. L.R.(3d) 38; 13 B.L.R.(2d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Foley v. Classique Coaches Ltd., [1934] 2 K.B. 1 (C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

Corson v. Rhuddlan Borough Council, [1990] 1 E.G.L.R. 255, consd. [para. 29].

Beer v. Bowden (Note), [1981] 1 W.L.R. 522, dist. [para. 35].

Bates (Thomas) & Son Ltd. v. Wyndham's (Lingerie) Ltd., [1981] 1 W.L.R. 505 (C.A.), consd. [para. 35].

B.I.H. Investments Inc. v. Kim, [1996] B.C.J. No. 49, dist. [para. 37].

Empress Towers Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1990), 50 B.C.L.R.(2d) 126 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Murphy v. McSorley, [1929] 4 D.L.R. 247 (S.C.C.), consd. [para. 38].

Young v. Van Beneen, [1953] 3 D.L.R. 702, consd. [para. 39].

Calford Properties Ltd. v. Kelly's Billiards Ltd. (1973), 37 D.L.R.(3d) 300 (Alta. Q.B.), consd. [para. 41].

Allarco Developments Ltd. v. Novelty Pipe Shoppe Ltd. and Alberta (Provincial Treasurer) (1982), 47 A.R. 161 (Q.B. Master), consd. [para. 42].

Nor-Isle Sales Ltd. v. Cadwallander et al. (1977), 1 B.L.R. 256 (S.C.), consd. [para. 43].

Empress Towers Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1990), 50 B.C.L.R.(2d) 126 (C.A.), consd. [para. 44].

Gateway Realty Ltd. v. Arton Holdings Ltd. and LaHave Developments Ltd. (No. 3) (1991), 106 N.S.R.(2d) 180; 288 A.P.R. 180 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Walford et al. v. Miles et al., [1992] 2 A.C. 128; 142 N.R. 179 (H.L.), consd. [para. 52].

Delgamuukw et al. v. British Columbia et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; 220 N.R. 161; 99 B.C.A.C. 161; 162 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 56].

Guerin v. Canada, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335; 55 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 56].

Opetchesaht Indian Band et al. v. Canada et al. (1994), 41 B.C.A.C. 241; 66 W.A.C. 241; 89 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), affd. [1997] 2 S.C.R. 119; 211 N.R. 241; 90 B.C.A.C. 1; 147 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 56].

Bobsien v. Wiebe (1985), 64 B.C.L.R. 295 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1985), 64 N.R. 394 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Counsel:

P.G. Voith and J.K. Wright, for the appel­lant;

D.B. Pope, M.J. Hewitt and J.M. Mackenzie, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 26, 1999, before Hollinrake, Ryan and Hall, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Hall, J.A., on April 15, 1999.