Insights

Rental Property Owners are Denied Coverage for Explosion Caused by Tenants: Drug Exclusionary Clause is both Valid and Reasonable in the Circumstances

Carteri v Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 SKQB 150 ..

Read More

Consolidation Debts to be Paid Pro Rata - Application of The Limitation of Civil Rights Act

Walker v Bank of Montreal , 2017 SKCA 42  ..

Read More

Caveat Emptor: Residential Home Sellers Found Not Liable for Property Defects Discovered after Purchase

The Court of Queen’s Bench in Clark v Styles determined that the vendor of a residential property should not be found liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding statements made about basement water seepage. The purchaser, Clark, entered into an agreement with the vendors, Styles, in which after possession took place, Clark found major cracks in the basement walls which resulted in a significant amount of water running into the house. ..

Read More

MC3 Resources Inc. v Hogan clarifies the law regarding registered interests in land

A key feature of Saskatchewan’s land titles system is the indefeasibility of title. In other words, the purchaser of real property is entitled to rely on the Land Registry to disclose all registered interests. Subject to rare exceptions, a purchaser will not be bound by any unregistered interest. In MC3 Resources Inc. v Hogan the court was concerned with an easement registered against land in Indian Head. In 2003, and easement was granted by the predecessor in title to MC3 in favour of one John Ciortan, a predecessor in title (although not the direct predecessor) to Ms. Hogan. The easement permitted Ciortan to enter upon "the most northerly 25 feet" of MC3's property to access his garage. The easement also contained the following provision "THIS EASEMENT SHALL CONTINUE DURING THE LIFETIME OF THE GRANTEE." Ciortan died in 2011, and MC3 sought an order pursuant to s. 109 of The Land Titles Act (the “Act”) discharging the easement. Hogan opposed the application. ..

Read More

Bankruptcy and Veto Powers under the Homesteads Act

In, Chartier v Chartier Estate (Trustee of) the Manitoba Court of Appeal determined that the veto power of a non-owning spouse under the Manitoba Homestead Act vested in the trustee in bankruptcy when the non-owning spouse’s homestead was sold. In this case, Mrs. Chartier declared bankruptcy before she was married and was an undischarged bankrupt. She then married Mr. Chartier and together they decided to sell their homestead. Her trustee in bankruptcy concluded that the homestead interest was after acquired property that vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and registered a Homestead Notice against the house. Mr. Chartier challenged the classification of the non-owning spouse’s veto power as after acquired property and the validity of the Homestead Notice. The Manitoba Court of Appeal found that the non-owning spouses veto right does vest in the trustee in bankruptcy when the homestead is being sold and that the trustee in bankruptcy can exercise this veto power. Although the Manitoba and Saskatchewan legislation with respect to homesteads differ, there are many similarities between the Acts. Debtors and creditors should be aware that the decision in Chartier v Chartier Estate (Trustee of) suggest that a trustee in bankruptcy may potentially claim and utilize a non-owning spouse’s veto power when a homestead is being sold in order to satisfy debts to creditors.  ..

Read More

Limitation periods and The Farm Security Act

In Lozinski v Thiessen Bros. Farms Ltd. (“Lozinski”), Saskatchewan courts considered the interplay between limitation periods provisions contained in The Farm Security Act and The Limitation of Actions Act. Although The Limitation of Actions Act has been repealed and replaced by The Limitations Act, the relevant principles remain applicable. ..

Read More

Condominium corporations obligated to bear the costs of investigations into deficiencies

In Hnatiuk v Condominium Corporation No. 032 2411, Master Schlosser was faced with an issue relating to common property in a condominium building. The Applicant was allergic to cigarette smoke and, from time to time, he would smell cigarette smoke emanating from the unit below. The Condo Corporation agreed to remedy the situation. When the bulkhead over the furnace room in the lower suite was opened, it was discovered that the fire separation between the units had not been installed. This was corrected, but the issue persisted. The Applicants requested the Condo Corporation to open the second bulkhead as well, to determine whether the fire separation had been installed there. The Condo Corporation further took the position that if it investigated and found the fire separation to be sufficient, the Applicant should bear the cost of the examination. ..

Read More

A joint tenant cannot unilaterally sever a joint tenancy in Saskatchewan

In Chernishenko v Popoff the Court of Queen's Bench was asked to determine whether one joint tenant could unilaterally sever a joint tenancy. A husband and wife lived on property owned by the husband prior to the marriage. During the marriage the property was registered in both names as joint tenants. The parties separated in 2003 and the wife moved to another province. There was no ongoing communication between the parties after separation. ..

Read More