University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Property Page 31 of 33

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

By

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.

Read More

Do Common-Law Spouses have Dower Rights?

By

On May 24, 2008

In Family, Property

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?

Read More

Minimum Housing Standards for Residential Tenancies Upheld

By

On May 16, 2008

In Landlord/Tenant, Property

By: Nickie Vlavianos

PDF Version: Minimum Housing Standards for Residential Tenancies Upheld

Cases Commented On: BPCL Holdings Inc. v Alberta, 2008 ABCA 153

Alberta’s Residential Tenancies Act (“RTA”), S.A. 2004, c. R-17.1, is generally speaking a landlord-friendly statute. It is not replete with protections for tenants. One important exception is s. 16(c), a fairly recent addition to the RTA. Section 16(c) requires landlords to ensure that rental premises “meet at least the minimum standards prescribed by housing premises under the Public Health Act and regulations.” Clearly, the Legislature intended some minimal health and safety protection for tenants.

Read More

The Guarantees Acknowledgement Act and Equity

By

On May 16, 2008

In Property

Cases Considered: Bharwani v. Chengkalath, 2008 ABCA 148

PDF Version: The Guarantees Acknowledgement Act and Equity

Sometimes it becomes apparent when reading a decision that the court would have preferred to reach a different result. Usually this is because the law seems to compel the result the court reaches, but fairness demands another. The decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in Bharwani v. Chengkalath are examples of the constraints the law occasionally puts on a court’s ability to do what seems right. The defendant in this case won, but it did not seem fair that she did.

Read More

Supreme Court denies leave to appeal in Real Estate Council of Alberta v. Henderson

By

On April 4, 2008

In Administrative Law, Property

Cases Considered: Real Estate Council of Alberta v. Henderson, 2007 ABCA 303

On March 27, 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada denied Henderson leave to appeal. This result is not surprising given that the Alberta Court of Appeal characterized the issue in Henderson as seemingly straightforward statutory interpretation. However, the denial of leave is disappointing as the case is now an opportunity lost for judicial consideration into the merits of an administrative decision-maker impeaching its own decision.

For the original post on Henderson, click here.

Page 31 of 33

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén