Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 38 of 42

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

Is it wrong for a landlord to insist on compliance with a term of a commercial lease? The recent judgment of Mr. Justice Sandy Park in 550 Capital Corp. v. David S. Cheetham Architect Ltd. certainly seems to indicate that it is inequitable for a landlord to require a tenant to do what it should have done, namely, to request the landlord’s consent to an assignment of the lease. The unidentified type of estoppel found to prevent the landlord from terminating the lease and the unnecessary relief from forfeiture granted so that the tenant could undo its assignment both appear, with all due respect, to be unjustified both on the facts and the law.

Another stay of judgment denied in the challenge to Alberta’s cap on damages for soft tissue injuries

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 8, 2008

In Constitutional, Insurance Law

Cases Considered: Morrow v. Insurance Bureau of Canada, 2008 ABCA 248

PDF Version: Another stay of judgment denied in the challenge to Alberta’s cap on damages for soft tissue injuries

The latest judgment in the constitutional challenge to Alberta’s $4,000 cap on non-pecuniary damages for soft tissue injuries incurred in motor vehicle accidents was handed down on June 27, 2008 by Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham of the Alberta Court of Appeal. State Farm Insurance Company, the insurer of the defendant in the personal injury action, had applied for a stay of the February 8, 2008 judgment of Associate Chief Justice Neil Wittmann. He had declared the Minor Injury Regulation, Alta. Reg. 124/2004 (MIR) unconstitutional, thus ending the $4,000 cap. See Morrow v. Zhang, 2008 ABQB 98 and the previous post on this judgment by Jennifer Koshan, “Not on Their Backs: Cap on Damages for Soft Tissue Injuries Struck Down; Court Denies Stay of Remedy Pending Appeal.” Justice Rowbotham denied State Farm’s application.

A Textbook First Year Property Law Case on the Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On July 8, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: 1198952 Alberta Ltd. v. 1356472 Alberta Ltd., 2008 ABQB 386

PDF Version: A Textbook First Year Property Law Case on the Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility

ALM Holdings Ltd. owned the Jasper Block, which is part of the Edmonton Historic Resource Management Program . It is a three storey Edwardian-era brick building on the north side of Jasper Avenue in central downtown Edmonton. 651730 Alberta Ltd. rented a part of the Jasper Block for a restaurant, the Fantasia Noodle House Restaurant. 1198952 Alberta Ltd. rented another part of the Jasper Block for a store, called Raleigh Foods. ALM sold the Jasper Block to 135647 Alberta Ltd. The question in this case was whether or not the purchaser, 135647 Alberta Ltd., was bound by ALM’s leases to the Noodle House and Raleigh Foods. The tenants sought a declaration from the court that the purchaser’s title to the Jasper Block was subject to their leases. The purchaser sought an order forcing the Noodle House and Raleigh Foods to vacate their premises in the Jasper Block.

Rights of First Refusal and Options to Purchase: What’s the Difference?

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On June 30, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: Koppe v. Garneau Lofts Inc., 2008 ABQB 354

PDF Version: Rights of First Refusal and Options to Purchase: What’s the Difference?

Garneau Lofts Inc. had redeveloped commercial property in an historical structure which had been St. Joseph’s Hospital on Whyte Avenue, in the City of Edmonton. The redeveloped property, with shops on the main floor, became known as the Garneau Lofts, combining unique, luxurious suites with a popular Whyte Avenue location. Dr. Sandy Koppe, an optometrist, had leased a portion of the Garneau Lofts for an upscale boutique eye wear store. He had leased it on behalf of his employer, Eye Care Optometric Group Ltd., a company in which his daughters were the only directors and shareholders.

Challenging Purchasers’ Ability to Obtain Specific Performance of Agreements for the Purchase and Sale of Land

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On June 24, 2008

In Property, Remedies

Cases Considered: 365733 Alberta Ltd. v. Tiberio, 2008 ABQB 328

PDF Version: Challenging Purchasers’ Ability to Obtain Specific Performance of Agreements for the Purchase and Sale of Land

365733 Alberta Ltd. v. Tiberio illustrates how commonplace challenges to purchasers’ ability to claim interests in land under purchase and sale agreements have become. Before the 1996 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 415, courts granted specific performance of agreements for the purchase and sale of land, forcing reluctant vendors to live up to bargains. Performance of the agreement was mandated because land was seen as unique, something whose loss could not be compensated for in monetary damages. Land was not like mass produced consumer goods. However, after Semelhago, purchasers had to produce evidence that the land they wanted to buy was unique and without a ready substitute in the market.

Author: Jonnette Watson Hamilton Page 38 of 42

What’s Wrong with Landlords’ Rights?

Another stay of judgment denied in the challenge to Alberta’s cap on damages for soft tissue injuries

A Textbook First Year Property Law Case on the Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility

Rights of First Refusal and Options to Purchase: What’s the Difference?

Challenging Purchasers’ Ability to Obtain Specific Performance of Agreements for the Purchase and Sale of Land