Court of Appeal sends family farm dispute back for a second trial

An "unfortunate dispute" between a brother and a sister over the family farm of their late parents has been sent back for a second trial.  The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the first trial judge "applied incorrect legal principles to the evidence and made numerous unreasonable findings of fact."  These "cumulative errors" rose "to the level of a substantial wrong".  A new trial was ordered because the transcript from the first trial did not allow the Court of Appeal to decide the factual issues for itself.

The farm had been in the family since 1830, and the son had worked on the farm as a full-time occupation for 24 years.  The son contended that he had an oral agreement with his parents that if he stayed on the farm and farmed with them, and if farming was his main occupation, he would receive the farm land and the farm assets when his parents stopped farming.  The sister, the only sibling, worked off the farm and was not involved in running the farm operation.

The mother and the father had identical wills: if one died, everything went to the survivor; when the survivor died, everything was shared equally between the son and the daughter.  After both parents died, the son commenced an action seeking a declaration that he was benefically entitled to the farm property and the farm business.  The sister contested the claim and filed a counterclaim asking for an accounting by the brother for his use of the farm property and the business since the father's death in 2001.  The son's claim was commenced in 2004.

The trial judge found that the son had not proven the alleged contract with his parents and dismissed his claim.  On the counterclaim, the trial judge ordered both son and daughter to account for their management of the estate property and assets since the father's death. The trial judge awarded costs to the daughter on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $275,000 inclusive, payable by the son and not by the estate of the parents. 

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the dismissal of the son's claim and also reversed the costs award.  The reasons for decision of the appellate court address the following three errors in the trial judge's consideration of the son's claim for part performance of an oral contract (i.e. for the transfer of the farm and farm business):

(i) he erred in concluding that because there were no signed documents, there was no oral agreement;

(ii) he erred in his application of the doctrine of part performance; and

(iii) he made various findings of fact that disclose palpable and overriding error.

The son was awarded $40,000 as costs of the appeal.

Read the decision at: Mountain v. TD Canada Trust Company.

Depth of Cover Monitoring Requirements Absurd? So says the Ontario Divisional Court

Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. has won an appeal from the dismissal of its small claims court action against a contractor over damage caused to a gas main in Holland Landing, Ontario.  Enbridge claimed that the contractor damaged the pipe when using a mechanical digging device to uncover a leaking septic tank.  Enbridge had asserted at trial that the entire incident could have been avoided if the contractor had called for a locate; the contractor was negligent.  On appeal, the Divisional Court agreed and awarded damages to Enbridge.

At trial and in the appeal, the issue of depth of cover over the pipe came into play.  The trial judge had found that the pipe was not buried at the minimum required depth (2 feet) and that Enbridge should have ensured proper depth.  However, the Divisional Court noted that there is no requirement in the applicable legislation or regulations (or the TSSA Guideline or the CSA Standard) that a gas main must remain installed at the minimum depth.

The Court reasoned:

There is no requirement that Enbridge must continually measure the depths of all of its buried pipelines. Such a finding would lead to the absurd result that utility companies would be required to constantly recheck their lines in the ground. It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that the Legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. If the Legislature intended this result, the Act, the Regulation, the TSSA Guideline or CSA Standard would have stated that utility companies must ensure that the pipes “remain” buried at a minimum depth.

Unlike the case of Sun-Canadian Pipeline v. Lockwood, where the Court found that the company had actual knowledge that the pipeline had insufficient cover on the property, there is no evidence that Enbridge had knowledge that its Gas Main was at less than the required depth at the property until after the incident occurred.

Although these comments must be read in light of the facts of this particular case, it will no doubt be of concern to pipeline landowners to find an appellate court in Canada suggesting that pipeline companies have no obligation to monitor the depth of cover over their pipelines.  In fact, the Divisional Court suggested that such a requirement would be absurd.

Read the decision at: Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese. 

Have a healthy and productive 2013!

To my readers: please accept my belated wishes of a Merry Christmas and have a very Happy New Year!

Pipeline Landowner Forum available at Pipeline Observer

An online forum for pipeline landowners has been set up at PipelineObserver.ca, along with blogs and news updates. The website "tracks pipeline news, industry, events and facilitates pipeline discussion".  The forum can be accessed at: Pipeline Forum.

When can a stream create a natural severance of a property?

A case is before the Ontario Superior Court in London to determine whether a local watercourse effectively severs a property into two parts.  An application has been commenced by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre for a declaration that a stream (the Bear Creek Drain) is not a navigable waterway such that a particular property through which it flows would be severed in two.  The predecessors in title of the affected landowners had previously applied to sever their property, but the application was denied.  The current landowners then obtained an opinion that the stream created a "natural severance"; a surveyor agreed and registered a reference plan showing the lands north and south of the stream as two separate parts and denoting the stream itself as "Unpatented Crown Land".

This was done without the knowledge of the municipality; the circumstances were discovered when the landowners made an application for a building permit that would have constituted a second dwelling on the same 10-acre parcel; this would not have been permitted without a rezoning unless there was a "natural severance".

Justice Heeney has ruled that it will not be necessary for the municipality to serve its application on other landowners along the Bear Creek Drain as the issue to be determined at trial will relate solely to the specific property in question: "was the stream a naviagble waterway at the time of the original Crown grant to the current owners' predecessors in title in 1831?  If the answer is yes, then the stream bed is deemed to have been excluded from the original grant, and title to it remains vested in the Crown, irrespective of the current status of the waterway.  If the answer is no, the stream bed was included in the deed to the parcel over which it flowed, and title to it vested in the private landowner who obtained the deed from the Crown, and in his successors in title, up to and including" the current landowners.

As the onus of proof will be on the landowners, Justice Heeney also ruled that they will present their case first at trial, to be followed by the municipality and then the Province of Ontario.

Read the decision at: Middlesex Centre v. MacMillan et al.

OPA to begin accepting Small FIT applications on December 14, 2012

From the OPA:

This is to advise you that the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) will begin accepting Small FIT applications on December 14, 2012, for renewable energy projects with a proposed capacity of 10 to 500 kilowatts. The OPA will award up to 200 megawatts worth of contracts as a result of applications received during this upcoming Small FIT application window.

Please note that the FIT Rules, FIT Contract and other program documents are being revised as a result of the November 23, 2012, and December 11, 2012, directives. Before submitting your application, please carefully review the latest versions of the program documents (version 2.1) to ensure you understand how the FIT Program has changed. The program documents will be available on the FIT website on December 14, 2012.

Applications are welcome from both new and pre-existing applicants. Pre-existing FIT applicants with Small FIT projects (formerly CAE applicants) who wish to be considered under the updated FIT Program can maintain their original time stamp if they submit an eligible revised application. More information will be available at fit.powerauthority.on.ca on December 14, 2012.  The OPA will also be hosting a web-enabled teleconference on Tuesday, December 18, 2012, to review the revised FIT Program and answer questions from interested stakeholders.  Details on how to participate will be posted on the FIT website.

BC Court of Appeal allows landowner appeal in breach of easement agreement case

I last wrote about this case in 2010: Utzig #2 decision.  As I explained in that post, the litigation concerns whether a pipeline owned and operated by the plaintiff Terasen Gas Inc. (“Terasen”) that runs through a portion of Burns Bog in Delta, B.C. was damaged or put at risk by landfill operations on lands owned by the defendant Utzig Holdings (B.C.) Ltd. (“Utzig”). The landfill operations were conducted, with Utzig’s permission, by the other defendants Alpha Manufacturing Inc., Burns Developments Ltd. and Burns Developments (1993) Ltd. (“Alpha” and “Burns”).

The BC Court of Appeal has now released a decision limiting the scope of the breach of covenants finding made by the lower court and dismissing in its entirely the claim in nuisance against the landowner. 

The covenants by the "owner" to the "utility" read as follows: "Not to do or knowingly permit to be done any act or thing which might, in the opinion of [the utility], interfere with or injure the works or any part thereof" (1961 ROW agreements) and "Not to do or knowingly permit to be done any act or thing which might, in the reasonable opinion of [the utility], in any way whatsoever interfere with or injure or endanger the works or any part thereof or impair the operating efficiency thereof or create or increase any hazard to persons." (1981 instrument)

For the landowner Utzig, the issue was whether it had, at all material times or some material times, permitted other parties to endanger the pipeline.  A key date was October 10, 1993, when Utzig entered into an Agreement for Sale of the property, which was never registered on title to the property.   The purchase price of $4 million was to be paid in instalments by October 18, 1995.  Terasen went to Court to seek injunctive relief prior to October, 1995, and the sale was never completed because the purchaser failed to pay the entire purchase privce when due.  For this reason, Utzig remained the registered owner of the property at all material times.

Madam Justice Newbury ruled (on behalf of 2 of the 3 judges on the panel) that the breach of the covenant not to permit only lasted up to the October 10, 1993 date:

In the result, I agree with the trial judge that up to October 10, 1993, Utzig retained sufficient authority over the subject property that it should be regarded as having “permitted” Alpha to do acts that might have interfered with or injured the pipeline. This constituted a breach of covenant. If in fact the works were so affected in this period, damages may be found to be payable in the second stage of this litigation. In respect of the post-AFS period, however, I would allow Utzig’s appeal on the ground that having sold the property under the AFS, it was no longer in a position to “permit”, or withhold permission for, Alpha’s activities. This result, in my view, accords with the reality that once land has been sold, it is for the new owner to be responsible for new breaches of the terms of instruments (such as rights of way or restrictive covenants) that are registered against the land. If it were otherwise, vendors would be obliged to obtain covenants from their purchasers repeating the covenants in such instruments, and one of the primary advantages of the Torrens registration system would be lost.

The last issue decided on the appeal related to Terasen's claim for nuisance - that Utzig was responsible for the landfill activities conducted on its land with its consent and that such activities substantially interfered with Terasen's use of its rights of way.  This claim related to the pre-October 10, 1993 period.  Utzig submitted that the threshold of “unreasonable interference” was not met in this case, given the lack of evidence of any “significant movement” of the pipeline until late 1994 and the fact the pipe was never “injured” physically.  The Court of Appeal ruled that, in the absence of clear evidence of substantial interference, the trial judge's finding of nuisance could not stand.

Read the decision at: Terasen Gas Inc. v. Utzig Holdings.

Court rules that oil and gas production lease does not grant gas storage rights

This is another decision in the ongoing McKinley Farms and Tribute Resources battle over gas storage rights on 200 acres of land in Huron County.  Tribute, through its predecessor(s), had obtained an oil and gas lease and a gas storage lease for the land in question.  The Court of Appeal has earlier ruled that the 1998 gas storage lease is no longer valid, but the Court upheld the oil and gas lease. 

 

Tribute now argues that it has gas storage rights under the oil and gas lease.  However, in the meantime, McKinley Farms has granted a gas storage lease to a different numbered company and now seeks an order from the Court that this lease is the only lease of the McKinley Farms lands that validly grants storage rights.  Justice Rady of the Superior Court of Justice in London has granted this order.

 

Justice Rady agreed with Tribute that its oil and gas lease contained language that could be interpreted to convey rights to storage; but she also concluded that the storage lease agreement (which was found by the Court of Appeal to be invalid or expired) was intended by the parties to replace those rights. 

Read the decision at: 2195002 Ontario Inc. v. Tribute Resources Inc.