Supreme Court

Decision Information

Irecan Limited v Yellowknife (City)

Court Supreme Court
Date 1988-05-24
Other citations (1988) – [1988] 6 W.W.R. 129 – [1989] 4 W.W.R. 660 (N.W.T. C.A.) – 40 M.P.L.R. 136 – 41 M.P.L.R. 87 – 51 D.L.R. (4th) 684 (N.W.T. S.C.) – 54 D.L.R. (4th) 706 – reversed (1988)
File numbers 01024
Judge(s) de Weerdt
Location Yellowknife
Cases and statutes considered Cases considered:
Bernadin v. North Dufferin (1881) 19 S.C.R. 581;
Speakman v. Calgary (1908) 9 W.L.R. 264, 1 Alta. L.R. 545 (C.A.);
Medalta Potteries Ltd. v. Medicine Hat (1931) 1 W.W.R. 217;
Biggs v. Township of Egremont (1975) 49 D.L.R. (3D) 491 (Ont. H.C.J.);
Silver' Garage Ltd. v. Town of Bridgewater (1971) S.C.R. 577, 17 D.L.R. (3D) 1, 2 N.S.R. (2D) 474;
Gold Range Hotel Ltd. v. Plains-Western Gas & Electric Co. Ltd. (1965) 49 D.L.R. (2D) 629 (C.A.);
New Era Developments Ltd. v. Red Deer (1964) 46 W.W.R., N.S. 63 (Alta. S.C. ALL. DIV.);
Malcolm v. Town of Blairmore (1913) 10 D.L.R. 835 (Alta. S.C.);
Re McEwan and City of Calgary (1913) 10 D.L.R. 791 (Alta. S.C.);
Rural Municipality of Eye Hill no. 382 v. Kidd (1977) 1 W.W.R. 149 (Sask. D. CT.);
Blomfield v. Rural Municipality of Starland (1916) 9 ALTA. L.R. 203 (C.A.);
Smith v. Village of Manor et al (1947) 2 W.W.R. 207 (Sask. C.A.);
Barlow v. Teal (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 403;
Jay v. Johnstone (1893) 1 Q.B. 25;
Greaves v. Tofield (1880) 14 CH. D. 563;
Lancashire v. Yorkshire Ry. v. Bury Corp. (1889) 14 App CAS. 417;
Galloway v. Galloway (1956) A.C. 299;
Toronto v. Toronty Ry. (1918) 42 O.L.R. 603;
Wentworth v. Hamilton Radial Elec. RY. (1917) 54 S.C.R. 178;
Rayionner B.C. Ltd. v. New Westminister (1962) 37 W.W.R. 288 (S.C.C.)
Spiers v. Toronto Township (1956) 4 D.L.R. (2D) 330 (Ont. H.C.J.).

Statutes considered:
MUNICIPAL ACT, R.O.N.W.T., 1974, C. M-15, S. 5, 144, 145, 184, 185-188, 190;
LAND TITLES ACT, R.S.C. 1970, C. L-4, SS. 132-134;
INTERPRETATION ACT, R.O.N.W.T., 1974, C. I-3, S. 6, 14, 24;
CITIES, TOWN, AND VILLAGES ACT (1987) (1ST) C. 14, S. 226
Decision information:

Abstract: Application for specific performance of an alleged contract for sale of land by the Defendant - Defendant accepted an offer to purchase lands from the Plaintiff on condition that acceptance subject to ratification by town council - Council never passed the by-law that would have ratified the agreement and the Defendant sold to another purchaser - Plaintiff registered a caveat against title and commenced this action.
Decision: Application dismissed - There was no binding contract between the parties for the sale of the land - Defendant had no authority to sell the land to the Applicant in the absence of a ratifying by-law - Court notes that the practise followed by the Defendant is not desirable as it creates uncertainty between parties - However, legally binding contract not created.
Subjects: Municipal law - Municipal contracts - Validity and enforceability
Keywords: Specific performance - ratification - by-law - Council

Decision Content

There is no document available for this decision.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.