Author Archives: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

About Jonnette Watson Hamilton

B.A. (Alta.), LL.B. (Dal.), LL.M. (Col.). Professor Emerita. Please click here for more information.

When is a Lease an Improper Subdivision of Land?

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: When is a Lease an Improper Subdivision of Land?

Case Commented On: Paskal Holdings Inc v Loedeman, 2017 ABCA 29 (CanLII)

An instrument or a caveat related to an instrument “that has the effect or may have the effect of subdividing a parcel of land” cannot be registered at a Land Titles Office unless a subdivision has been approved by the appropriate planning authority, according to subsections 652(1) and (5) of the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c M-26. Section 94(1) of the Land Titles Act, RSA 2000, c L-4 provides that “[n]o lots shall be sold under agreement for sale or otherwise according to any townsite or subdivision plan until a plan creating the lots has been registered.” Both of these prohibitions have much broader scope than might be apparent on first reading. Neither is restricted to sales of fee simple title. In fact, over the years the most difficult applications of this prohibition have involved leases of portions of parcels of land, such as leases of farmsteads on quarter sections, stand-alone stores in mall developments, and RV or mobile home lots. The most recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in this area ? Paskal Holdings Inc v Loedeman ? might settle some issues. Continue reading →

The Harsh Consequences of Ignoring the Dower Act

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Harsh Consequences of Ignoring the Dower Act

Case Commented On: Joncas v Joncas, 2017 ABCA 50 (CanLII)

If you are a married Albertan with a piece of real property registered in your name alone, and you have resided on that property since the date of your marriage, then you cannot sell, mortgage, lease for more than three years, or otherwise dispose of that property without the written and acknowledged consent of your spouse. The Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15, sections 1(d), 2, 4 and 5 say the property is a “homestead” and you need consent to dispose of it. The purpose of the 100-year-old Dower Act is to provide a home for a widow/er — a right to a life estate on the death of the married person who owned the homestead (Senstad v Makus, [1978] 2 SCR 44 at 51, 1977 CanLII 201 (SCC)). And there would not necessarily be a home for the widow/er if the married person could unilaterally sell or otherwise dispose of the homestead, and so they cannot. The purpose of the Dower Act and the way it achieves its purpose was commendable one hundred years ago, when married women could not acquire land by homesteading, there was no social welfare safety net, divorce was far less common, life expectancies were much shorter, and families were far less complex. Today, however, things are different and the Dower Act can come into conflict with the Matrimonial Property Act, RSA 2000, c M-8 on the breakdown of a marriage. The Matrimonial Property Act is all about the fair distribution of matrimonial property between spouses or ex-spouses, but its fairness considerations are absent from the Dower Act. The potential for financially disastrous consequences is high when a married person with a homestead, whose marriage has broken down, is unaware of the requirements of the Dower Act and the harshness of the consequences of ignoring those requirements. Joncas v Joncas is an excellent example of the conflict and a cautionary tale. Continue reading →

Residential Tenancy Agreements, Options to Purchase, In Terrorem Clauses, and Relief from Forfeiture

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton 

PDF Version: Residential Tenancy Agreements, Options to Purchase, In Terrorem Clauses, and Relief from Forfeiture

Case Commented On: Dreamworks Ventures Ltd v Dye, 2017 ABPC 20 (CanLII)

This residential tenancy case, arising in the context of a rent-to-own arrangement, is light on the law. The dispute was primarily about the tenants’ responsibility for cleaning and painting after they left the house and this decision assesses the damages. Nevertheless, the case raised one interesting legal point. Judge Allan H. Lefever mentioned an in terrorem clause in connection with the Option to Purchase that had been granted to the tenants in return for a non-refundable $5,000 deposit that was part of the rent-to-own arrangements. While he mentions the clause, he did not discuss it because it was not relevant to the dispute. The in terrorem clause tried to scare the tenants to stop them from filing a caveat to protect their interest under the Option to Purchase. Can this in terrorem clause possibly be valid? This, it seems, is a difficult question to answer. Continue reading →

Street v Mountford Applied to Decide: A Residential Tenancy Agreement or a Licence?

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Street v Mountford Applied to Decide: A Residential Tenancy Agreement or a Licence?

Case Commented On: Singh v RJB Developments Inc., 2016 ABPC 305 (CanLII)

This Provincial Court decision by Judge Jerry LeGrandeur, Associate Chief Judge, is of interest primarily because he used the common law in order to determine whether the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, c R-17.1 (RTA) applied to Jaspreet Singh’s occupation of a portion of a building owned by RJB Developments Inc (RJB). While this resort to the common law in this context is rarely seen, we can expect to encounter it more often, given the increasing variety in short- and long-term residential accommodations. The courts usually do rely on the common law in those few borderline cases, such as this one, where the question is whether the RTA applies, even though the statute appears to answer all questions about its scope. However, when resorting to the common law, the courts — including Judge LeGrandeur in this case — do not always indicate why they believe it is both necessary and possible to do so. This is unfortunate because the RTA is usually used by non-lawyers who often rely on explanations of the statute that are provided by Service Alberta (e.g., RTA Handbook and Quick Reference Guide) or non-profit organizations such as the Centre for Public Legal Education Alberta (e.g., Renting 101: A Guide to Renting in Alberta). None of those explanations indicate that landlords and tenants need to look outside the RTA to find out if it applies; they all simply paraphrase the statute. Continue reading →

The Vexing Question of Authority to Grant Vexatious Litigant Orders

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: The Vexing Question of Authority to Grant Vexatious Litigant Orders

Case Commented On: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 (CanLII)

Hok v Alberta is an unusual vexatious litigant decision for three reasons. First, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta made submissions in a brief of law. Second, those submissions were purely about the law governing vexatious litigant orders. The submissions had no more to do with the facts of this particular case than they did with the facts of any and every other vexatious litigant case. Because these legal issues apply broadly, this November 2016 decision is worth noting and I will focus on the legal issues exclusively. Third, there appears to be a challenge in this decision to the Court of Appeal’s jurisprudence on vexatious litigant orders and, specifically, to its doubts about the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Queen’s Bench to issue broad orders restraining abusive conduct in all forums and against all persons in all future litigation. Continue reading →