Category: Property Page 5 of 34

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).

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

On November 8, 2019

In Landlord/Tenant, Property

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).

The End of Adverse Possession?

By Stella Varvis

On September 10, 2019

In Property

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.

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

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On June 12, 2019

In Property, Wills and Estates

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.

Severing a joint tenancy in Alberta

By Nigel Bankes

On December 14, 2018

In Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Severing a joint tenancy in Alberta

Case Commented On: Dobransky v Roteliuk, 2018 ABQB 660 and Smilley v McMillan, 2018 ABQB 988.

Co-owners in Alberta may choose to hold an estate in land as joint tenants or as tenants in common: Law of Property Act, RSA 2000, c L-7, sections 4 and 5 (LPA). A joint tenancy carries with it the incident of survivorship – that is, the right of the surviving joint tenant to the entire estate. Despite the fact that there is a presumption in favour of a tenancy in common and that therefore co-owners must indicate expressly that they wish to own as joint tenants and not as tenants in common (LPA, section 8), there is general agreement (and this was certainly the position of courts of equity) that it should be easy to destroy or sever the joint tenancy thereby avoiding the incident of survivorship. This post sets out the law of severance and then comments on two recent decisions in each of which the plaintiff sought to get the Court’s assistance to complete a severance.

Category: Property Page 5 of 34

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

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

The End of Adverse Possession?

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

Severing a joint tenancy in Alberta