Cases considered: G 400 Holdings Ltd. v. Yeoman Development Company Limited, 2008 ABQB 667

PDF Version: Is there really any question about the test for part performance in Alberta

I apparently spoke too soon. In March 2008, I noted that the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Booth v. Knibb Developments Ltd., 2002 ABCA 180 had settled any doubts about which test for part performance applies in Alberta: see “The Doctrine of Part Performance: Still Strict After All These Years”. There are two tests for determining what acts of part performance are sufficient to allow enforcement of an oral agreement concerning land, both originally formulated by the House of Lords. The older and stricter test was set out in Maddison v. Alderson (1883), 8 App. Ca. 467 at 478 (H.L.); it requires that the acts relied upon by the claimant as part performance “be unequivocally, and in their own nature, referable to some such agreement as that alleged.” That test was relaxed considerably in England in 1976, with the decision in Steadman v. Steadman, [1976] A.C. 536. In Steadman, the House of Lords held that the acts of part performance need refer only on the balance of probabilities to some contract to which the claimant was a party. Although a number of Alberta courts applied the more relaxed test from Steadman in the 1980s, in 2002 the Alberta Court of Appeal unequivocally adopted the traditional, stricter test from Maddison v. Alderson. That was the end of the influence of Steadman in Alberta – until the October 30, 2008 decision of Madam Justice Barbara Romaine in G 400 Holdings Ltd. v. Yeoman Development Company Limited.
Continue reading →

Cases Considered: B.H. v. E.J., 2008 ABQB 650

PDF Version: Can a Court of Queen’s Bench judgment that contains no law be considered law itself?

Title to a residential property in Edmonton was registered in the names of the plaintiff, B.H., and the defendant, E.J., as to each an undivided one-half interest as tenants in common. The property seemed to be up for sale and the question before the court was whether or not B.H. was entitled to any of the proceeds of sale. Her name was on the title, but did that mean B.H. had an interest in the Edmonton house which would entitle her to one-half of the sale proceeds? E.J. alleged that B.H.’s name was only placed on the title because she agreed to co-sign a mortgage for E.J. and that B.H. had no right to a portion of the sale proceeds. Mr. Justice James Langston agreed with the defendant, E.J., and ordered that all of the net proceeds of the sale of the property be paid to the defendant or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff transfer her undivided one-half interest to the defendant for $1.00. Remarkably, Justice Langston did so without referring to any legal authority whatsoever.

Continue reading →

Cases Considered: Hall v. Tieken Estate, 2008 ABQB 646

PDF Version: The Fraud Exception to Indefeasibility of Title: Applying Section 203 of the Land Titles Act

The land registration system used in Alberta is established by the Land Titles Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-4 and based on the Torrens system. Under this system, the provincial government has custody of all titles, plans and other documents related to interests in land and responsibility for the accuracy of all land titles information registered or filed with it. In a jurisdiction with a Torrens system, the government guarantees that a person named as the owner in the register established and maintained by the government has a title that is subject only to encumbrances and exceptions registered against that title and to enumerated statutory exceptions. Basically, a person’s title is free of adverse claims unless those claims are mentioned on their title. Their title is “indefeasible.” There are, of course, exceptions to indefeasible title in a Torrens system. Fraud is one of those exceptions, and it was the exception in issue in this case. In general, if you participate or collude in fraud, you do not have an indefeasible title.

Continue reading →