Sabey v. von Hopffgarten Estate et al., (2014) 361 B.C.A.C. 223 (CA)

• Judge: Neilson, Bennett and MacKenzie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: September 22, 2014
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2014), 361 B.C.A.C. 223 (CA);2014 BCCA 360

Sabey v. von Hopffgarten Estate (2014), 361 B.C.A.C. 223 (CA);

    619 W.A.C. 223

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.030

Jesse Sabey (respondent/plaintiff) v. Warren Scott Beardsley, as Executor of the Will of Kim Louise von Hopffgarten, deceased (respondent/defendant) and Burgi Rommel (appellant/defendant)

(CA40882; 2014 BCCA 360)

Indexed As: Sabey v. von Hopffgarten Estate et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Neilson, Bennett and MacKenzie, JJ.A.

September 22, 2014.

Summary:

The testator's 1998 will left her horse farm to Rommel. Beginning in 2001, Sabey worked as a student at the farm. Over the years, the testator and her husband told Sabey that he would be inheriting the farm. A 2006 codicil left the farm to Sabey rather than Rommel, but it was invalid for non-compliance with the Wills Act where it was witnessed by only one person. The testator died in 2011. Sabey sued the estate and Rommel for an equitable interest in the farm based on proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment or an express or implied trust.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a judgment reported [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 642, allowed the equitable claim. The court allowed the proprietary estoppel claim where there were representations that Sabey would inherit the farm, reasonable reliance on those representations, and the suffering of a detriment by Sabey. The court did not deal with the unjust enrichment and express or implied trust claims. Rommel appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, MacKenzie, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court stated that "while Mr. Sabey was assured and genuinely believed he would inherit the farm, the extent of his detrimental reliance was far less than that assessed by the trial judge. Awarding him the farm was far out of proportion to the detriment he suffered (under-compensated contributions of time and labour) and, in all the circumstances, would not do justice between the parties." The matter was remitted to the trial judge to adjudicate the outstanding claims of unjust enrichment and express or implied trust, as well as the issue of proportionality as it related to the proprietary estoppel claim.

Estoppel - Topic 1324

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Acquiescence or encouragement - Proprietary estoppel - See paragraphs 23 to 85.

Estoppel - Topic 1389

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - Lack of prejudice or detrimental reliance by person raising estoppel - See paragraphs 23 to 85.

Cases Noticed:

Crabb v. Arun District Council, [1975] 3 All E.R. 865; [1976] Ch. 179, refd to. [para. 25].

Zelmer v. Victor Projects Ltd. (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 302; 147 W.A.C. 302; 34 B.C.L.R.(3d) 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Trethewey-Edge (Dyking District) v. Coniagas Ranches Ltd. et al. (2003), 180 B.C.A.C. 258; 297 W.A.C. 258; 2003 BCCA 197, refd to. [para. 26].

Sykes v. Rosebery Parklands Development Society (2011), 298 B.C.A.C. 222; 505 W.A.C. 222; 2011 BCCA 15, refd to. [para. 26].

Taylors Fashions Ltd. v. Liverpool Trustees Co., [1982] 1 Q.B. 133 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

Western Fish Products Ltd. v. Penwith District Council, [1981] 2 All E.R. 204, refd to. [para. 32].

Thorner v. Major, [2009] UKHL 18, refd to. [para. 33].

Gillett v. Holt, [2000] 2 All E.R. 289; [2001] Ch. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Knights v. Wiffen (1870), L.R. 5 Q.B. 660 (Q.B.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Ryan v. Moore et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 53; 334 N.R. 355; 247 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 286; 735 A.P.R. 286; 2005 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 42].

Belvedere v. Brittain Estate (2009), 244 O.A.C. 303; 2009 ONCA 1, refd to. [para. 53].

Watts & Ready v. Storey (1983), 134 N.L.J. 631 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Jennings v. Rice, [2002] EWCA Civ 159, refd to. [para. 71].

Australia (Commonwealth) v. Verwayen (1990), 170 C.L.R. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Sykes v. Rosebery Parklands Development Society, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 227; 2010 BCSC 227, affd. (2011), 298 B.C.A.C. 222; 505 W.A.C. 222; 2011 BCCA 15, refd to. [para. 75].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 95].

Parminter v. Parminter (2011), 309 B.C.A.C. 168; 523 W.A.C. 168; 340 D.L.R.(4th) 651; 2011 BCCA 347, refd to. [para. 123].

Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of Transport and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans), [1992] 1 S.C.R. 3; 132 N.R. 321; 88 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 123].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364; 96 D.L.R.(3d) 14, refd to. [para. 123].

MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6; 397 N.R. 232; 2010 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 123].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1992), vol. 16, para. 1072 [para. 27].

Counsel:

R.S. Henderson and B. Hepburn, for the appellant;

A. Francis, for the respondent, Sabey;

E. Clough, for the respondent, Beardsley.

This appeal was heard on February 20, 2014, at Vancouver, B.C., before Neilson, Bennett and MacKenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On September 22, 2014, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Bennett, J.A. (Neilson, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 85;

MacKenzie, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 86 to 125.