Tate v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. et al.,

• Judge: Funduk
• Neutral Citation: 2001 ABQB 1128
• Citation: (2001), 308 A.R. 61 (QBM),2001 ABQB 1128,308 AR 61,(2001), 308 AR 61 (QBM),308 A.R. 61
• Date: 04 December 2001
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Tate v. CMHC (2001), 308 A.R. 61 (QBM)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. JA.027

Ray Tate and Jennifer Tate (plaintiffs) v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Arthur Paul Lautner and Howard Goldford (defendants)

(Action No. 0003 23695; 2001 ABQB 1128)

Indexed As: Tate v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Funduk, Master in Chambers

December 28, 2001.

Summary:

In July 1996, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) obtained a judgment against the Tates for over $24,000. In October 1997, CMHC's collection agent sent the Tates demand letters stating that their debt was one cent. The Tates each paid one cent. In August 2000, the Tates received another demand letter from a different collection agent for over $28,000. The Tates alleged there had been a settlement. CMHC denied any settlement. The Tates sued to enforce the settlement. CMHC sought summary judgment.

A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench granted CMHC summary judgment.

Contracts - Topic 4605

Discharge and termination - Accord and satisfaction - What constitutes - General - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) obtained a judgment against the Tates - CMHC's collection agent sent the Tates demand letters stating that their debt was one cent each - The Tates each paid one cent - The Tates later received another demand letter from a different collection agent for the full judgment - The Tates argued that their payment of two cents constituted part performance of their obligation and was accepted by CMHC in full satisfaction of their obligation (Judicature Act, s. 13(1)(b)) - A Master of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the demand letters were not offers of compromise - They were merely demands for payment - This was a case of two debtors trying to take advantage of a "stupid error" by CMHC's agent - The master also rejected the defences of promissory estoppel and waiver - There was no detrimental reliance by the Tates on the demand letters - The letters were not representations by CMHC - See paragraphs 32 to 76.

Contracts - Topic 9912

Promissory estoppel - Where applicable - Requirement of detrimental reliance - [See Contracts - Topic 4605 ].

Contracts - Topic 9915

Promissory estoppel - Where applicable - Requirement of promise - [See Contracts - Topic 4605 ].

Waiver - Topic 46

Essential elements - Intention to relinquish - [See Contracts - Topic 4605 ].

Cases Noticed:

Maritime Life Assurance Co. v. Regional Capital Properties Corp. et al. (1996), 190 A.R. 196; 44 Alta. L.R.(3d) 267 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 15].

Couldery v. Bartram (1881), 19 Ch. D. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Esquire Heating & Air Conditioning Ltd. v. Hoffman et al. (1985), 56 A.R. 184 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 33].

Hoolahan v. Hivon, [1944] 4 D.L.R. 405 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Watson and Watson (1986), 67 A.R. 179 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 36].

Rommerill v. Gardener (1962), 40 W.W.R.(N.S.) 265 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Bank of Nova Scotia v. Lockhart (1987), 75 A.R. 156 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

Burrows and Andrew v. Cardinal Coach Lines Ltd. (1994), 151 A.R. 233 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Cramer (1994), 152 A.R. 185 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 38].

D & C Builders Ltd. v. Rees, [1966] 2 Q.B. 617 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Graham v. Voth Brothers Construction (1974) Ltd., [1982] 6 W.W.R. 365 (B.C. Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

Edmonton Savings and Credit Union Ltd. v. Weir (1988), 86 A.R. 329 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

Beneficial Canada Inc. v. Supria (1996), 180 A.R. 367 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52].

Windjammer Homes Inc. v. Generation Enterprises (1989), 43 B.L.R. 315 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Ajayi v. Briscoe (R.T.) (Nigeria) Ltd., [1964] 1 W.L.R. 1326 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 61].

Smoky River Coal Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 7621 et al. (1985), 60 A.R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Scotsburn Co-operative Services Ltd. v. Goodwin (W.T.) Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 54; 57 N.R. 81; 67 N.S.R.(2d) 163; 155 A.P.R. 163, refd to. [para. 64].

Burrows (John) Ltd. v. Subsurface Surveys Ltd. et al., [1968] S.C.R. 607, refd to. [para. 69].

Weathermakers Ltd. v. Wetaskiwin (County) No. 10 (1966), 56 W.W.R.(N.S.) 271 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

Federal Business Development Bank v. Steinbock Development Corp. (1983), 42 A.R. 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Côté, J.E., An Introduction to the Law of Contract, pp. 11 [para. 43]; 172 [para. 9].

Dunlop, Charles Richard Bentley, Creditor-Law in Canada (2nd Ed. 1995), pp. 37, 38 [para. 39].

Counsel:

R.W. Steen (Witten LLP), for Canada Mortgage & Housing Corp.;

D. Scott (Matheson & Company), for the plaintiffs.

This application was heard on December 4, 2001, before Funduk, Master in Chambers, of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on December 28, 2001.