Willoughby Residential Development Corp. v. Bradley, (2002) 169 B.C.A.C. 253 (CA)

• Judge: Lambert, Mackenzie and Hollinrake, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 22, 2002
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 253 (CA);2002 BCCA 321

Residential Dev. Corp. v. Bradley (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 253 (CA);

    276 W.A.C. 253

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.007

Willoughby Residential Development Corporation (respondent/plaintiff) v. Dawne Statia Bradley (defendant) and Philip Bradley (appellant/defendant)

(CA028701; 2002 BCCA 321)

Indexed As: Willoughby Residential Development Corp. v. Bradley

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Mackenzie and Hollinrake, JJ.A.

May 23, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiff company had an agreement with the female defendant to purchase prop­erty in Langley, B.C. In a collateral court action, it was determined, inter alia, that the property was owned one-half by the female and male defendants. Both defendants appealed portions of this decision, but the appeal was settled before hearing. The plaintiff company sued to enforce its agree­ment of sale.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2001] B.C.T.C. 992, allowed the action and ordered specific performance of the agreement. The male plaintiff appealed. The plaintiff company applied for disclosure of the settlement documents in the appeal of the collateral action.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Mackenzie, J.A., dismissed the application. The plaintiff company applied for review of Mackenzie, J.A.'s, decision.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 165 B.C.A.C. 317; 270 W.A.C. 317, dismissed the appli­cation for review.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the following decision, dismissed the male plaintiff's appeal.

Editor's Note: See also related cases at [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 213, and [2001] B.C.A.C. Uned. 216.

Agency - Topic 1409

Authority of agent - Apparent authority - Holding out - General - The plaintiff contracted with the female defendant to purchase a property - Her brother, the male defendant, concealed his contribution to the property's purchase and his interest for 20 years - He allowed his sister to take regis­tered title in her name alone and manage it as if she were the only owner - He clothed her with all the indicia of ownership - A collateral action determined that the prop­erty was owned one-half by each defendant - The plaintiff sued for specific perfor­mance - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the female defendant had apparent author­ity to bind the male defen­dant's interest to the sale contract - The male defendant was estopped from denying that authority - See paragraphs 23 to 29.

Estoppel - Topic 1165

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Represen­tation - By conduct - Holding out title to property - [See Agency - Topic 1409 ].

Real Property - Topic 7849

Title - Registration of instruments, etc. - Lis pendens or certificate of pending liti­gation - Effect of - The plaintiff con­tracted with the female defendant to pur­chase a property registered solely in her name - The male defendant claimed an interest in the property and filed a certifi­cate of pending litigation (CPL) against title - A collateral action determined that the property was owned one-half by each defendant - The plaintiff sued for specific performance and filed its own CPL, after the male defendant's CPL was already on title - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the Land Title Act, s. 29, was inapplicable - The male defendant's registration was first in time and entitled to priority on the proper application of ss. 20 and 22 of the Act - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

March v. Drab (1977), 5 B.C.L.R. 396 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 17].

Central Station Enterprises Ltd. v. Shangri-La Estates Ltd. (1979), 98 D.L.R.(2d) 316 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 17].

Hudson's Bay Co. v. Kearns & Rowling (1896), 4 B.C.R. 536 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Rimmer v. Webster, [1902] 2 Ch. 163, consd. [para. 26].

Abigail v. Lapin, [1934] 3 W.W.R. 689 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Stonehouse v. British Columbia (Attorney General) (1960), 26 D.L.R.(2d) 391 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 250, sect. 20(1), sect. 22, sect. 31(a) [para. 15]; sect. 29(1) [para. 14].

Counsel:

Robert J. Sewell, Q.C., and H.M. Veenstra, for the appellant;

Herbert S. Silber and K. Guidera, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Lambert, Mackenzie and Hollinrake, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vic­toria, British Columbia, on April 22, 2002. The decision of the court was delivered on May 23, 2002, by Mackenzie, J.A.