Rajani v. Mandel Group Inc., (1987) 75 A.R. 309 (QBM)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 1987
• Citations: (1987), 75 A.R. 309 (QBM)

Rajani v. Mandel Group Inc. (1987), 75 A.R. 309 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Amir Rajani v. Mandel Group Inc.

(Action No. 8603 25047)

Indexed As: Rajani v. Mandel Group Inc.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

February 6, 1987.

Summary:

A fired employee and his employer differed on the interpretation of an alleged settlement between them. The employee claimed they agreed to $12,000.00 in settlement of his claim for compensation in lieu of reasonable notice. The employer claimed the $12,000.00 was in settlement of all claims the employee may have against the employer. The employee applied for summary judgment for $12,000.00 and for an order that the balance of his claim go to trial. The employer sought summary judgment for a determination that the $12,000.00 settled all claims.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed both applications, because there was an unresolved fact dispute as to the subject matter of the settlement. The Master held that judgment for $12,000.00 could not be given, because it was possible that there was no settlement because the parties were not ad idem about the subject matter. The Master also held that the employee could not obtain summary judgment on the alleged settlement where the application for summary judgment was not based on the alleged settlement.

Courts - Topic 2121

Jurisdiction - Trial jurisdiction - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the court does not have jurisdiction to give a judgment except in accordance with the issues raised by the parties" - See paragraph 8.

Practice - Topic 5708

Judgments and orders - Summary judgment - Bars - Existence of issues to be tried - A dismissed employee claimed the employer offered him $12,000.00 in settlement of his claim for compensation in lieu of reasonable notice - The employer claimed the $12,000.00 was in lieu of all claims the employee may have - Each applied for summary judgment - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the applications, because there was an unresolved fact dispute as to the subject matter of the alleged settlement - Also, even though both parties agreed that $12,000.00 was offered, summary judgment for $12,000.00 could not be awarded where there was a possibility that there was no settlement because the parties were not ad idem respecting subject matter.

Cases Noticed:

McDonald v. Fellows, 105 D.L.R.(3d) 434 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Creditel of Canada v. Terrace Corporation (Construction) (1984), 50 A.R. 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Parkwood Forest Products v. Kehler (1987), 75 A.R. 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chitty on Contracts (25th Ed.), pp. 186-187 [para. 22].

Counsel:

H.A. Syed (Gaede, Fielding and Syed), for the plaintiff;

C.W. Pierce (Corbett, Benkendorf), for the defendant.

These applications were heard before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 6, 1987.