QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton (City), (1984) 58 A.R. 182 (CA)

• Judge: McGillivray, C.J.A., Prowse and Belzil, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: Friday November 30, 1984
• Citations: (1984), 58 A.R. 182 (CA)

QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton (1984), 58 A.R. 182 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton, City of

(No. 17235)

Indexed As: QCTV Ltd. v. Edmonton (City)

Alberta Court of Appeal

McGillivray, C.J.A., Prowse and Belzil, JJ.A.

November 30, 1984.

Summary:

A cablevision company entered into an agreement with the City of Edmonton for the use of the city's telephone system and facilities to construct a cablevision network. The agreement provided for a "special franchise charge" to be paid by the cablevision company to the city. The company applied for a declaration that it was not liable to pay any charge. The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment reported 48 A.R. 255 held that the company was liable. The company appealed. The city cross-appealed from the refusal of the trial judge to award interest as damages.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and allowed the cross-appeal.

Interest - Topic 5300

Interest as damages - Interest on payment of money or debt withheld - General - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that in determining whether interest should be awarded as damages under s. 15 of the Judicature Act the court must first determine whether the payment has been improperly withheld and, if so, whether it is fair and equitable that compensation by the payment of interest be required. - See paragraphs 14 to 26.

Interest - Topic 5302

Interest as damages - Interest on payment of money or debt withheld - Improper withholding - What constitutes - A city agreed to let a cable-vision company use its telephone facilities in constructing its cablevision system in return for a charge - The company refused to pay the charge for untenable reasons - The Alberta Court of Appeal in affirming that the company was liable for the charge awarded interest as damages, because the company improperly withheld payment and had the use of the money in the meantime - See paragraphs 14 to 31.

Municipal Law - Topic 2446

Contracts by municipalities - Contract to provide services - Use of municipal plant and equipment - The city agreed to let a cablevision company use its telephone system to assist in constructing a cablevision system in return for a charge, characterized as a "special franchise charge" - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the company was liable on its contract to pay the charge - See paragraphs 1 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Prince Albert Pulp Co. v. Foundation Co., [1971] 1 S.C.R. 201, appld. [para. 18].

Maxim v. Springfield Fire and Insurance Co. et al, [1945] 3 W.W.R. 705, consd. [para. 19].

Eyben v. K.R. Ranches (1972) Ltd., [1982] 5 W.W.R. 267; 38 A.R. 336, consd. [para. 19].

Kenting Drilling Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. of Canada, [1979] 5 W.W.R. 68; 26 A.R. 90, (reversed on appeal in unreported decision), consd. [para. 19].

Granpac Ltd. v. American Home Assurance Company (1981), 33 A.R. 212; 17 Alta. L.R.(2d) 71, consd. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Judicature Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. J-1, sect. 15 [para. 17].

Counsel:

J. Redmond, Q.C., for the appellant;

W. Wilson, Q.C., for the respondent;

W. Henkel, Q.C., for the intervenant.

This case was heard before McGillivray, C.J.A., Prowse and Belzil, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On November 30, 1984, Prowse, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal: