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.

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

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.

Continue reading →

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

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.

Continue reading →

Something Happened (with apologies to Joseph Heller)

Case Considered: Brentech Services Ltd. v. Sunray Manufacturing Inc., 2008 ABQB 301

PDF Version:  Something Happened (with apologies to Joseph Heller)

“Want of prosecution” is a curious and old-fashioned phrase. It refers to an absence of steps taken in a court action by the person who started the lawsuit. It is an allegation and finding of indefensible and excessive delay in carrying a lawsuit through to its conclusion.

Continue reading →

Provincial Court Small Claims Appeals: When is an appeal by way of trial de novo appropriate?

Cases Considered: Rezources Inc. v. Gift Lake Development Corp., 2008 ABQB 254

PDF Version:  Provincial Court Small Claims Appeals: When is an appeal by way of trial de novo appropriate? 

Section 51 of the Provincial Court Act, R.S.A. 2000 Ch. P-31, provides that an appeal of a Provincial Court decision is to be heard as an appeal on the record unless a party applies and the Court of Queen’s Bench orders that the appeal to be heard as a trial de novo. The default position is therefore an appeal on the record that was created at trial, usually a transcript of what was said and any exhibits that were entered.

Continue reading →

Do Common-Law Spouses have Dower Rights?

Cases Considered: Nielson v. Paumier Estate, 2008 ABCA 159

PDF Version:  Do Common-Law Spouses have Dower Rights?

Strictly speaking, Mr. Justice Jack Watson’s decision in Nielsen v. Paumier Estate is simply a decision denying an application to restore an appeal to the Court of Appeal’s hearing list. However, the factual and legal context of the application is both tragic and complex. It includes at least twelve court orders since 2003 dealing with the sale of one house in Edmonton. The real legal issue in the last few judgments, including this one by Mr. Justice Watson, was said to be whether or not Paul Nielsen’s consent to the sale of the house owned by Michele Paumier could be dispensed with under the provisions of the Dower Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. D-15. However, given that Nielsen is described as Paumier’s “common-law spouse,” is it not questionable whether Nielsen even has dower rights?

Continue reading →