Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp., 2005 ABQB 779

JudgeActon, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateOctober 04, 2005
Citations2005 ABQB 779;(2005), 388 A.R. 354 (QB)

Re/Max v. Social Housing (2005), 388 A.R. 354 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. OC.145

Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd., operating as Re/Max Real Estate (plaintiff) v. The Alberta Social Housing Corporation (defendant)

(0103 04381; 2005 ABQB 779)

Indexed As: Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Acton, J.

October 20, 2005.

Summary:

The plaintiff real estate company sued the defendant vendor for a commission on several parcels of land, claiming breach of contract, entitlement based on quantum meruit and negligent misrepresentation. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a non-suit under rule 260 of the Alberta Rules of Court.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion.

Brokers - Topic 4068

Compensation - The compensation agreement - Implied agreement (incl. implied terms) - The plaintiff real estate company sued the defendant vendor for a commission on three parcels of land, even though those parcels were never sold, because it presented the defendant with reasonable offers for those parcels - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a non-suit motion by the defendant dismissing the action - The court held that for the plaintiff to succeed in its argument, it would have to imply a term in the listing agreement that the defendant would accept reasonable offers - The court noted that the power to imply terms into a contract should be used cautiously and no implied term could be inconsistent or contrary to the express terms of the contract - To imply a term in this case would be contrary to an express term in the contract providing that the defendant was not bound to accept any offers - The agent involved expressed no concerns about the agreement even though he was aware of the terms - The court would not change the mutual agreement between the parties simply because the end result was unfavourable to the plaintiff - See paragraphs 54 to 59.

Brokers - Topic 4263

Compensation - Quantum meruit - Entitlement - The plaintiff real estate company sued the defendant vendor for a commission on two parcels of land on a quantum meruit basis - Notwithstanding that the sale occurred over two months after the end of the 90 day overholding period, the plaintiff argued that there was an unbroken chain of continuity between its efforts and the eventual sale of the land - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted a non-suit motion by the defendant dismissing the action - The court noted that a claim for quantum meruit could not succeed in the face of a contractual agreement - In any event, the facts did not support the plaintiff's assertion of an unbroken chain of continuity - See paragraphs 64 to 69.

Contracts - Topic 2068

Terms - Implied terms - Exceptions - Conflict with express terms - [See Brokers - Topic 4068 ].

Practice - Topic 5390.1

Dismissal of action - Application or motion for dismissal - Nonsuit - At close of plaintiff's case - When available (incl. grounds) - The plaintiff real estate company sued the defendant vendor for a commission on several parcels of land, claiming breach of contract, entitlement based on quantum meruit and negligent misrepresentation - At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for a non-suit under rule 260 of the Alberta Rules of Court, claiming that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence in support of its claims - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the requirements for a non-suit under rule 260 of the Rules of Court - See paragraphs 5 and 6 - In the result, the court granted the motion where the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to any of the relief sought - See paragraphs 54 to 71.

Cases Noticed:

Belzil v. Bain et al. (2001), 300 A.R. 72; 2001 ABQB 890, refd to. [para. 5].

G.A. et al. v. D.R.M. et al. (2003), 347 A.R. 376; 2003 ABQB 960, refd to. [para. 5].

Duff (Alex) Realty Ltd. v. Eaglecrest Holdings Ltd. et al. (1983), 44 A.R. 67; 26 Alta. L.R.(2d) 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Power (Ted) Realty Inc. v. Danray Alberta Ltd. et al. (2000), 262 A.R. 319; 79 Alta. L.R.(3d) 316 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc. (2000), 255 A.R. 373; 220 W.A.C. 373; 2000 ABCA 151, refd to. [para. 33].

Dow Agrosciences Canada Inc. v. Philom Bios Inc., [2005] A.R. Uned. 525; 2005 ABQB 491, refd to. [para. 34].

Mesa Operating Limited Partnership v. Amoco Canada Resources Ltd. (1994), 149 A.R. 187; 63 W.A.C. 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Gordon and Associates Ltd. v. Devon Estates Ltd. and Boone (1987), 77 A.R. 4 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Martens v. Gulfstream Resources Canada Ltd. (1998), 221 A.R. 252; 1998 ABQB 469, refd to. [para. 48].

Meyer v. Partec Lavalin Inc. et al. (2001), 281 A.R. 339; 248 W.A.C. 339; 2001 ABCA 145, refd to. [para. 51].

Greenberg v. Montreal Trust Co., Meffert and Melfi (1985), 9 O.A.C. 69; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 548 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1985), 64 N.R. 156; 14 O.A.C. 240 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

Sullivan v. Newsome (1987), 78 A.R. 297 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Catre Industries Ltd. v. Alberta (1989), 99 A.R. 321; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 260 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (4th Ed. 1999), p. 500 [para. 34].

Counsel:

Steven L. Cooper (Ahlstrom Wright Oliver & Cooper LLP), for the plaintiff;

Sheila C. McNaughtan (Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer LLP), for the defendant.

This motion was heard on October 4, 2005, by Acton, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on October 20, 2005.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • 673633 Alberta Ltd. v. Coates et al., (2008) 458 A.R. 229 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 15 Enero 2008
    ...(1996), 181 A.R. 223; 116 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55]. Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp. (2005), 388 A.R. 354; 2005 ABQB 779, refd to. [para. Colony Park Enterprises Inc. v. Screpnechuk et al. (2002), 309 A.R. 350; 2005 ABQB 46, refd to. [para. 61......
  • Kainth v. Capital Health Authority et al., 2006 ABQB 401
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 24 Abril 2006
    ...et al. (2003), 347 A.R. 376; 2003 ABQB 960, refd to. [para. 2]. Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp. (2005), 388 A.R. 354; 2005 ABQB 779, refd to. [para. 3]. Foley v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (Alta.) et al. (2002), 330 A.R. 1; 299 W.A.C.......
  • German v. Alberta et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 669 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 25 Septiembre 2009
    ...will be granted, Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. (c.o.b. Re/Max Real Estate) v. Alberta (Social Housing Corp. ), [2005] A.J. NO. 1407, 2005 ABQB 779; see also Mallet v. Alberta (Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, Administrator) (2002), 330 A.R. 1, 2002 ABCA 297. [11] For the purpose of a......
  • 673633 Alberta Ltd. v. Coates et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 6 Junio 2007
    ...[1986] 1 S.C.R. 70; 65 N.R. 209; 14 O.A.C. 159, consd. [para. 16]. Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp. (2005), 388 A.R. 354; 2005 ABQB 779, affd. [2007] A.R. Uned. 37; 2007 ABCA 126, consd. [para. Colony Park Enterprises Inc. v. Screpnechuk et al. (2002), 309 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • 673633 Alberta Ltd. v. Coates et al., (2008) 458 A.R. 229 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 15 Enero 2008
    ...(1996), 181 A.R. 223; 116 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55]. Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp. (2005), 388 A.R. 354; 2005 ABQB 779, refd to. [para. Colony Park Enterprises Inc. v. Screpnechuk et al. (2002), 309 A.R. 350; 2005 ABQB 46, refd to. [para. 61......
  • Kainth v. Capital Health Authority et al., 2006 ABQB 401
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 24 Abril 2006
    ...et al. (2003), 347 A.R. 376; 2003 ABQB 960, refd to. [para. 2]. Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp. (2005), 388 A.R. 354; 2005 ABQB 779, refd to. [para. 3]. Foley v. Administrator, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act (Alta.) et al. (2002), 330 A.R. 1; 299 W.A.C.......
  • German v. Alberta et al., [2009] A.R. Uned. 669 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 25 Septiembre 2009
    ...will be granted, Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. (c.o.b. Re/Max Real Estate) v. Alberta (Social Housing Corp. ), [2005] A.J. NO. 1407, 2005 ABQB 779; see also Mallet v. Alberta (Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, Administrator) (2002), 330 A.R. 1, 2002 ABCA 297. [11] For the purpose of a......
  • 673633 Alberta Ltd. v. Coates et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 6 Junio 2007
    ...[1986] 1 S.C.R. 70; 65 N.R. 209; 14 O.A.C. 159, consd. [para. 16]. Re/Max Real Estate (Edmonton) Ltd. v. Alberta Social Housing Corp. (2005), 388 A.R. 354; 2005 ABQB 779, affd. [2007] A.R. Uned. 37; 2007 ABCA 126, consd. [para. Colony Park Enterprises Inc. v. Screpnechuk et al. (2002), 309 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT