Wilgosh v. Good Spirit Acres Ltd., (2006) 276 Sask.R. 142 (QB)

• Judge: Wimmer, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 17, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2006), 276 Sask.R. 142 (QB);2006 SKQB 25

Wilgosh v. Good Spirit Acres Ltd. (2006), 276 Sask.R. 142 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.085

Roman Wilgosh (plaintiff) v. Good Spirit Acres Ltd. (defendant)

(2003 Q.B.G. No. 1443; 2006 SKQB 25)

Indexed As: Wilgosh v. Good Spirit Acres Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Wimmer, J.

January 17, 2006.

Summary:

In April 2001, the parties entered into an agreement by which the plaintiff would perform custom farming services on the defendant's land. The plaintiff performed the work in 2001 and 2002. The defendant repudiated the contract in January 2003. The plaintiff sued for amounts owed under the agreement together with service charges compounded at 1.5% per month. He also claimed damages for loss of prospective income for 2004 and 2005 on the basis that he was wrongfully deprived of the opportunity to exercise an option in the agreement to provide services during those years. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the plaintiff had unlawfully converted mustard belonging to the defendant to his own use, that there were acreage overcharges by the plaintiff, and that the clause of the contract requiring payment of a 1.5% service charge to be compounded monthly did not meet the requirements of the federal Interest Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench found that the plaintiff had converted the defendant's mustard to his own use and that the conversion provided cause for the defendant to repudiate the agreement. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid for amounts owed for his services as of the repudiation date, together with interest at 5% per annum. Beyond that, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The defendant's counterclaim was allowed to the extent that it was entitled to deduct the value of the missing mustard, the acreage overcharges and the service charges paid in excess of 5% per annum, from the amount owed to the plaintiff.

Contracts - Topic 9

General principles - Options - [See Contracts - Topic 5643 ].

Contracts - Topic 5643

Unenforceable contracts - Uncertainty and vagueness - Uncertainty - In April 2001, the parties entered into an agreement by which the plaintiff would perform custom farming services on the defendant's land - The plaintiff performed the work in 2001 and 2002 - The defendant repudiated the contract in January 2003 - The plaintiff claimed damages for loss of prospective income for 2004 and 2005 on the basis that he was wrongfully deprived of the opportunity to exercise an option in the agreement to provide services during those years - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the option clause was void for uncertainty where it was incomplete - The option clause did not describe the services which might be required in 2004 or 2005, or at what price - There was also no direction as to how the option would be exercised - Further, the option clause rested on a presumption that custom services would be required in 2004 and 2005, which was not the case - The defendant had not farmed the land since 2002 - See paragraphs 30 to 31.

Contracts - Topic 6532

Illegal contracts - Violations of statute law - Statutes - Licensing - In April 2001, the parties entered into an agreement by which the plaintiff would perform custom farming services on the defendant's land - The plaintiff performed the work in 2001 and 2002 - The defendant repudiated the contract in January 2003 - The plaintiff sued for amounts owed under the agreement - The defendant raised the issue that, unknown to the defendant, the plaintiff did not hold a valid Pesticide Applicator Licence as required by the Pest Control Products (Saskatchewan) Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the defendant had the benefit of the plaintiff's services in 2001 and 2002 and even if the contract might be invalid or void or unenforceable in one respect or another, it would allow the plaintiff to recover the value of those services on a quantum meruit basis - The court stated that it would not deny the plaintiff the fruits of his labour merely for want of a $20 pesticide licence - See paragraphs 52 to 56.

Interest - Topic 3002

Statutory interest - Interest Act - Application of - [See Interest - Topic 3104 ].

Interest - Topic 3104

Statutory interest - Interest Act - Statutory conditions - Requirement of statement of "yearly rate" - The plaintiff sued the defendant for amounts owed under a contract for services - The defendant argued that the clause of the contract requiring payment of a 1.5% service charge to be compounded monthly on outstanding account balances did not meet the requirement in s. 4 of the federal Interest Act that the contract state the yearly interest rate - The plaintiff argued that the Interest Act had no application to the agreement - He cited a decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which had taken a restrictive view of the meaning of "interest" in the legislation and confined it to agreements to extend time for the payment of a loan or purchase price in return for the payment of interest - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that it was bound by a decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which held that the Interest Act applied to all contracts - The agreement in this case did not meet the requirement in s. 4 of the Act - The plaintiff was only entitled to a service charge calculated at the rate of 5% per annum - See paragraphs 48 to 51.

Restitution - Topic 784

Benefit acquired from the plaintiff - Recovery based on quantum meruit - Work performed or goods provided - [See Contracts - Topic 6532 ].

Cases Noticed:

Murphy v. McSorley, [1929] S.C.R. 542, refd to. [para. 30].

Town & Country Marketing Ltd. v. Koutsouflakis (1990), 85 Sask.R. 130 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Continental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co. et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 164; 40 N.R. 135, refd to. [para. 37].

Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458, refd to. [para. 37].

B & B Rentals Inc. v. Dallas Contracting Ltd., [2000] Sask.R. Uned. 25; 2000 SKQB 54, refd to. [para. 48].

Mitsui & Co. Ltd. v. Ocelot Industries Ltd., [1986] 3 W.W.R. 337; 68 A.R. 125 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 49].

Sunnyside Nursing Home v. Builders Contract Management Ltd. et al., [1990] 5 W.W.R. 289; 83 Sask.R. 294 (C.A.), folld. [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Contract in Canada (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 350 [para. 55].

Counsel:

Pauline Duncan Bonneau, Q.C., for the plaintiff;

Ronald G. Gates, Q.C., for the defendant.

This action and counterclaim were heard before Wimmer, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on January 17, 2006.