Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Category:Legal Principles]]
| |
| [[Category:Small Claims]]
| |
| [[Category:Landlord Tenant]]
| |
|
| |
|
| ==The Defence of Estoppel==
| |
| ===[http://canlii.ca/t/1j0dz BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. v. Wellington West Capital Inc., 2004 CanLII 33776 (ON SC)]===
| |
|
| |
| [24] To assert estoppel by convention, a party must demonstrate that both parties embarked upon a course of conduct based upon the same premise or assumption. See Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd., [1982] 1 Q.B. 84 at 122 (C.A.) per Denning M.R.
| |
|
| |
| ==Conduct Estopple==
| |
| ===[[:File:2001-CarswellBC-2904.pdf|Chernoff Developments Ltd. v. Kent (District), 2001 BCSC 1626]]===
| |
|
| |
| 76 I turn now to the law. Mr. Selinger said that conduct estopple applies to a local Government where there has been a
| |
| corporate act and the Petitioner has relied on the act to its detriment. He relies on the decision of Levine, J., as she then
| |
| was, in Gladiuk Contracting Ltd. v. Richmond (City), 1998 CarswellBC 2297 (B.C. S.C.) in which Her Ladyship relied
| |
| on the decision of Braidwood, J., as he then was, in Harwood Industries Ltd. v. Surrey (District) (1991), 60 B.C.L.R.
| |
| (2d) 168 (B.C. S.C. [In Chambers]), and applied the principles of estopple by conduct discussed in Litwin Construction
| |
| (1973) Ltd. v. Kiss (1988), 29 B.C.L.R. (2d) 88 (B.C. C.A.). It will be seen that in my opinion both Gladiuk and Harwood
| |
| are distinguishable on their facts.
| |
|
| |
| 79 After noting that in Harwood Braidwood, J. held that the principle of estopple could apply to Municipalities where
| |
| there is unfairness or injustice requiring the exercise of judgment, Her Ladyship then cited and followed the following
| |
| description of estopple by conduct discussed in Litwin at pg. 179:
| |
| ::Of course, '''estopple by conduct''' has been a field of the law in which there has been considerable expansion over the years and <b><u>it appears to me that it is essentially the application of a rule by which justice is done where the circumstances of the conduct and behaviour of the party to an action are such that it would be wholly inequitable that he should be entitled to succeed in the proceeding.</b></u>
| |
|
| |
| ==Promissory Estoppel==
| |
| ===[http://canlii.ca/t/h677c Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Zelsman, 2017 ONSC 5289 (CanLII)]===
| |
|
| |
| [33] The Supreme Court summarized the elements of promissory estoppel as follows:
| |
| ::'''The principles of promissory estoppel are well settled. The party relying on the doctrine must establish that the other party has, by words or conduct, made a promise or assurance which was intended to affect their legal relationship and to be acted on.''' <u>'''Furthermore, the representee must establish that, in reliance on the representation, he acted on it or in some way changed his position.'''</u> see: [http://canlii.ca/t/1fslb Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, 1991 CanLII 58 (SCC), (1991) 2 SCR 50]
| |
|
| |
| [34] In Re Med-Chem Health Care Inc.[(2000) O.J. No. 4009 at para 7] Swinton J. held that there must be a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance that strict legal rights will not be relied upon, an intention to affect legal relations, and reliance on the promise or assurance.
| |
|
| |
| [35] In [http://canlii.ca/t/gmm0r Deloitte & Touche LLP Hood J]. held at paragraph 24 that the “promise” on which the plaintiff relied was so unclear that it could not have affected the legal relationship between the parties. At paragraph 30, he observed that it was not a “final and irrevocable promise”.
| |
