Category Archives: Property

Does the Dower Act Still Serve a Useful Purpose? ALRI Wants to Hear From You!

By: Katherine MacKenzie

PDF Version: Does the Dower Act Still Serve a Useful Purpose? ALRI Wants to Hear From You!

Legislation Commented On: Dower Act, RSA 2000, c D-15

The Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) is studying whether the Dower Act should be reformed or repealed.  The project is still in its early stages, with a consultation document forthcoming in 2021. In the meantime, ALRI is seeking preliminary feedback on the Dower Act and any practical problems it may present.

Key Features of the Dower Act

The rights under the Dower Act only apply to married people (s 1(c)). The Act is intended to protect a spouse (the “dower spouse”) if the couple’s home is solely owned by the other spouse (the “owner spouse”). It applies to a “homestead”, which is a parcel of land where the owner spouse lived during the marriage (s 1(d)). The Dower Act protects the dower spouse from losing their home, either during the lifetime of the owner spouse or after the owner spouse’s death. There are two key features:

  • Consent to disposition: The owner spouse cannot dispose of a homestead without the consent of the dower spouse (s 2(1)). Disposition includes a transfer, long-term lease, or mortgage (s 1(b)). If the owner spouse disposes of a homestead without consent, they may be subject to a penalty and liable to pay damages to the dower spouse (ss 2(3), 11).
  • Life estate: The dower spouse is entitled to a life estate in the homestead after the death of the owner spouse (s 18).

The Dower Act has been part of the law of Alberta for more than 100 years, but it has not changed substantially since 1948.

Continue reading →

Ranchman’s Receivership: Exploring Different Proprietary Rights in the Memorabilia

By: Jassmine Girgis*

PDF Version: Ranchman’s Receivership: Exploring Different Proprietary Rights in the Memorabilia

Article Commented On: Natalie Valleau, “Prized saddles, trophies and more picked up by rodeo families after Ranchman’s closure”, CBC News (2 October 2020)

Last month, one of Calgary’s iconic country bars closed its doors. Ranchman’s had been a part of Calgary’s western culture for close to 50 years, having first opened its doors April 27, 1972.

As is typical in receivership proceedings, the lender, the Bank of Montreal (BMO), seized Ranchman’s assets, including historic saddles and other memorabilia that hung from the building’s rafters. These memorabilia had been loaned to the bar by rodeo stars (referred to in this post as the “owners”); in exchange for food and drink, these owners allowed the bar to display the items, but on the understanding that they could take their property back whenever they wanted. Jim Gladstone, a champion calf-roper, commenced this practice after his 1977 world championship, wherein he took his champion saddle to Ranchman’s and, in exchange for not having to stand in line, pay cover, etc., he allowed Ranchman’s to display his saddle for free. Over the years, the bar acquired more memorabilia and trophies under the same conditions.

Upon reading about BMO’s decision to release the memorabilia to the owners (which came as a big relief to them and their families), I wondered whether BMO had concluded that it had no legal rights to retain the memorabilia, or had simply wanted to avoid a potential public relations nightmare (regardless of rights). Although BMO’s decision has rendered this point moot, I wanted to explore whether Ranchman’s could have had an interest in the memorabilia (referred to below as “collateral” or “property”), which would then have determined BMO’s legal rights in it. I write this post based solely on the facts garnered from a few newspaper articles (see here; here; and here).

Continue reading →

Wear and Tear, Cleanliness, Repair, Replacement and Betterment: A Landlord’s Claims for Compensation at the End of a Residential Tenancy

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: Wear and Tear, Cleanliness, Repair, Replacement and Betterment: A Landlord’s Claims for Compensation at the End of a Residential Tenancy

Case Commented On: Barry v Navratil, 2019 ABPC 229 (CanLII)

This decision by Judge Jerry LeGrandeur deals with several claims by a landlord for compensation for damages allegedly done to residential premises by former tenants. The landlord claimed for the cost of replacing the carpet in the living room, master bedroom and a closet, based on what the landlord said was damage due to pet urine and, in one specific spot, due to cigarette burns. She also claimed for the cost of replacing the kitchen countertops and backsplash due to a burn from a hot cooking pot. These two claims for replacement rather than repair raised the issue of “betterment,” because the landlord ended up in a better position than she would have been in had the carpet and countertop not been damaged. The landlord also claimed for the cost of materials to sand and paint the garage floor which had been stained by the tenant. That claim raised the issue of wear and tear, although it was resolved as a cleaning issue. Judge LeGrandeur’s written decision provides some helpful clarity for both landlords and tenants on the issues of repairing versus replacing, betterment, wear and tear, and cleaning, as well as the burden of proof, standard of proof, and the need for evidence. It also reinforces the rule that a landlord cannot demand more of a tenant than do the statutory obligations in the Residential Tenancies Act, SA 2004, s R-17 (RTA). Continue reading →

The End of Adverse Possession?

By: Stella Varvis

PDF Version: The End of Adverse Possession?

Report Commented On:Alberta Law Reform Commission, Adverse Possession and Lasting Improvements to Wrong Land, Report for Discussion No 33 (July 2019)

Squatters. Land rustlers. Property pirates.

No matter how you describe it, the law of adverse possession suffers from a public perception problem. Many Albertans believe that adverse possession is an affront to their real property rights, or that that it simply shouldn’t exist within a Torrens land titles system. Despite the fact that adverse possession has existed in Alberta since the province’s inception – and that successful cases are relatively rare – the idea that adverse possession rewards a deliberate trespasser, and penalizes a registered owner who is forced to give up some of their titled land without any compensation, continues to persist. Continue reading →

How to Interpret a Will, or “Motorcycles make a House a Home”

By: Jonnette Watson Hamilton

PDF Version: How to Interpret a Will, or “Motorcycles make a House a Home”

Case Commented On: Hicklin Estate v Hicklin, 2019 ABCA 136 (CanLII)

Hicklin Estate is a judgment interpreting one word in a will – the word “home.” It is also a judgment with 138 paragraphs and 90 footnotes saying, in the end, that the chambers judge committed no palpable or overriding error in using extrinsic evidence to broadly interpret “home” to include the contents of the house and the garage. Not only was the sole issue a relatively narrow one, but the applicable law appears to be uncontroversial. It does not seem to be a case that calls for any more elaboration of the law than that given it by the lower courtin what the Court of Appeal called a “careful review” of the jurisprudence (at para 40). Nevertheless, lawyers seem to love this lengthy Court of Appeal judgment, applauding its “interesting hypotheticals (which heavily feature vintage Rolls-Royce automobiles)” and calling it a “delight to read, for it is an erudite and learned disquisition” and “a model of stylistic clarity.” However, the stylistic clarity seems to have distracted readers’ attention from problems with the substance of the judgment. Continue reading →