Rivergate Properties Inc. v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality), (2006) 205 Man.R.(2d) 230 (CA)

• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: December 08, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 230 (CA);2006 MBCA 76

Rivergate Prop. v. West St. Paul (2006), 205 Man.R.(2d) 230 (CA);

    375 W.A.C. 230

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.001

Rivergate Properties Inc. (applicant/respondent) v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul (respondent/appellant)

(AI 05-30-06132; 2006 MBCA 76)

Indexed As: Rivergate Properties Inc. v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton, JJ.A.

July 20, 2006.

Summary:

Rivergate Properties Inc. was engaged in a long-standing dispute with the rural municipality of West St. Paul. An arbitrator dismissed certain claims Rivergate brought against West St. Paul, finding that she had jurisdiction to grant an equitable remedy for delay and indicating that the Limitation of Actions Act (LAA) was a factor for consideration but did not govern arbitration proceedings. Rivergate appealed.

A motions judge, in a decision not reported in this series of reports, set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding that the LAA applied to arbitrations and that the defence of laches did not apply when statutory limitations applied. West St. Paul applied for leave to appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 195 Man.R.(2d) 149 granted leave to appeal to Rivergate on two questions of law: (i) whether the arbitrator erred in applying the doctrine of laches to Rivergate's claims and (ii) whether the arbitrator was precluded from applying the defence by virtue of s. 51(1) of the Arbitration Act (application of limitation periods).

The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The motions judge was correct when he interpreted s. 51(1) to mean that statutory limitations apply to arbitrations. The motions judge erred when he concluded that the equitable defence of laches did not apply when statutory limitations applied. The arbitrator correctly identified that laches required more than mere delay. Because the nature of Rivergate's claims and the remedies it sought were not clear from the record, the issue was remitted to the arbitrator for determination.

Editor's note: for related decisions, see 161 Man.R.(2d) 50 and [2004] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 36.

Arbitration - Topic 7803

Judicial review (incl. appeals) - General principles - Nature of review proceeding (incl. standard of review) - Rivergate Properties Inc. was engaged in a longstanding dispute with a rural municipality (RM) - An arbitrator dismissed certain claims Rivergate brought against the RM - Rivergate appealed - A motions judge set aside the arbitrator's decision - The RM appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part - Because the appeal was from the Court of Queen's Bench, the Court of Appeal had to address the standard of review in both courts - The issue on the appeal was a question of law, specifically the application of statutory limitation periods and the availability of the defence of laches - Applying the pragmatic and functional approach led the Court to the conclusion that the standard in both courts was correctness - While the arbitrator's expertise and the legislation's purpose pointed to a deferential standard, the Arbitration Act provided a right of appeal on questions of law - This, combined with the fact that questions of law were of fundamental importance, demanded a standard of correctness - See paragraphs 21 to 28.

Arbitration - Topic 7963

Judicial review - Jurisdiction of arbitrator - General - Equitable jurisdiction - Rivergate Properties Inc. was engaged in a longstanding dispute with a rural municipality (RM) - An arbitrator dismissed certain claims Rivergate brought against the RM, finding that she had jurisdiction to grant an equitable remedy for delay - Rivergate appealed - A motions judge set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding that the Limitation of Actions Act applied to arbitrations and that the defence of laches did not apply when statutory limitations applied - The RM appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part - The standard of review was correctness - The grammatical and ordinary meaning of s. 31 of the Arbitration Act (the Act) was that equitable defences were available to a party to an arbitration - The Act incorporated the law of equity into arbitration proceedings - Arbitrators were required to consider and apply principles of equity, where warranted - The motions judge erred when he ruled that the defence of laches was not available because statutory limitations applied - See paragraphs 38 to 48.

Equity - Topic 2061

Equitable defences - Laches - General - Rivergate Properties Inc. was engaged in a longstanding dispute with a rural municipality (RM) - An arbitrator dismissed certain claims Rivergate brought against the RM, finding that she had jurisdiction to grant an equitable remedy for delay - Rivergate appealed - A motions judge set aside the arbitrator's decision - The RM appealed - Rivergate asserted that the arbitrator had erred when she applied the defence of laches to Rivergate's claims because they were not founded in equity or seeking an equitable remedy - The RM responded that Rivergate's claims were equitable to the extent that they involved promissory estoppel, specific performance, rectification and declaratory relief - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part - The arbitrator was within her authority to dismiss Rivergate's claims as she did, provided that those claims were founded in equity or seeking an equitable remedy - However, the court was not in a position to identify the nature of Rivergate's claims - The issue was remitted to the arbitrator for further hearing - See paragraphs 49 to 57.

Equity - Topic 2061

Equitable defences - Laches - General - On an appeal of a decision setting aside an arbitrator's application of the defence of laches to a plaintiff's claim, the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated that "the defence of laches entails the notion of delay combined with either (a) evidence of conduct revealing that the plaintiff acquiesced in the alleged wrongful act in a way that leads reasonably to the inference that the plaintiff waived its right to a remedy, or (b) evidence that, in reliance on the status quo, the defendant altered its position in a way that constitutes prejudice, or evidence that through its delay, the plaintiff permitted circumstances to arise that it would be unjust to disturb. Therefore, delay will not afford an effective defence until the defendant is able to establish prejudice or other evidence of potential injustice." - See paragraph 53.

Equity - Topic 2067

Equitable defences - Laches - Limitation period - [See Arbitration - Topic 7963 and Limitation of Actions - Topic 4802 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 4802

Arbitration - General - Application of Limitations Acts - Rivergate Properties Inc. was engaged in a longstanding dispute with a rural municipality (RM) - An arbitrator dismissed certain claims Rivergate brought against the RM, finding that she had jurisdiction to grant an equitable remedy for delay - She also indicated that the Limitation of Actions Act (LAA) was a factor for consideration but did not govern arbitration proceedings - Rivergate appealed - A motions judge set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding that the LAA applied to arbitrations and that the defence of laches did not apply when statutory limitations applied - The RM appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part - The standard of review was correctness - Under s. 51(1) of the Arbitration Act, the LAA applied to matters in dispute in an arbitration - The arbitrator erred when she stated otherwise - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Osachuk v. Osachuk (1970), 10 D.L.R.(3d) 81 (Man. Q.B.), consd. [para. 10].

Irvine v. Irvine, [1977] 3 W.W.R. 37 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

J.L.O. Ranch Ltd. v. Logan Estate and Logan (1987), 81 A.R. 261; 54 Alta. L.R.(2d) 130 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

Nova Construction Ltd. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 211; 251 A.P.R. 211 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Suburban Construction Ltd. v. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corp. (1985), 54 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 160 A.P.R. 91 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Osachuk v. Osachuk (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 413 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

MacDonell v. M & M Developments Ltd. et al. (1998), 165 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 495 A.P.R. 115; 157 D.L.R.(4th) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Royal Canadian Legion Norwood (Alberta) Branch 178 v. Edmonton (City), [1994] 5 W.W.R. 39; 149 A.R. 25; 63 W.A.C. 25; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Rio Alto Exploration Ltd. v. White (1990), 104 A.R. 84 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Nalleweg, [1996] 5 W.W.R. 297; 180 A.R. 208 (Q.B.), revd. [1999] 5 W.W.R. 241; 223 A.R. 89; 183 W.A.C. 89; 1998 ABCA 282, refd to. [para. 18].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 23].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, appld. [para. 25].

Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd. v. Agrium Inc. (2003), 347 A.R. 107; 41 B.L.R.(3d) 210; 2003 ABQB 1004, revd. (2005), 363 A.R. 103; 343 W.A.C. 103; 3 B.L.R.(4th) 262; 2005 ABCA 82, refd to. [para. 32].

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2005), 205 O.A.C. 270; 79 O.R.(3d) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

York Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Co-operators (1999), 17 C.C.L.I. (3d) 16 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Bulmer Aircraft Services Ltd. v. Bulmer (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 766 A.P.R. 203; 2005 NBQB 396, refd to. [para. 34].

British Columbia v. British Columbia Government Employees Union (1999), 84 L.A.C.(4th) 252 (B.C. Arb. Bd.), dist. [para. 36].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 41].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 245; 297 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 79, consd. [para. 41].

Nova Scotia (Attorney General) v. Halifax (City) (1968), 2 D.L.R.(3d) 576 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

251798 Ontario Inc. v. R., [1978] 1 F.C. 90 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 55].

Newfoundland Association of Public Employees v. Newfoundland et al. (1998), 167 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 72; 513 A.P.R. 72 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

United Steel Workers of America, Local 6516 v. Sydney Steel Corp. (1980), 39 N.S.R.(2d) 151; 71 A.P.R. 151 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, S.M. 1997, c. 4; C.C.S.M., c. A-120, sect. 31 [para. 6], sect. 51(1) [para. 7].

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-150; C.C.S.M., c. L-150, sect. 59 [para. 12].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1955), vol. 14, p. 641, para. 1181 [para. 9].

Mew, Graeme, The Law of Limitations (2nd Ed. 2004), p. 191 [para. 35].

Spry, I.C.F., The Principles of Equitable Remedies: Specific Performance, Injunctions, Rectification and Equitable Damages (5th Ed. 1997), generally [para. 18]; p. 225 [para. 50].

Williams, Jeremy S., Limitation of Actions in Canada (2nd Ed. 1980), p. 31 [para. 16].

Counsel:

M.L. Grande and K.L. Crawford, for the appellant;

J.G. Frame, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 8, 2005, by Scott, C.J.M., Steel and Hamilton, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Hamilton, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court on July 20, 2006.