Case information

Contracts — Sale of real property — Specific performance — Summary dismissal — Whether the uniqueness of a property is an issue for the burden of proof to be reviewed on a correctness assessment, or whether it is an evidentiary issue to be treated with deference — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ignoring the doctrine of corporate identity — If the defendant provides evidence that damages will be an adequate remedy, what is the threshold for a plaintiff to raise a triable issue on specific performance.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondent Pittman Brothers Production Ltd. holds farmland and carries out farming operations in the Warner area of Alberta. Jerome Pittman and Charles Pittman are shareholders and directors of the corporation. The applicants Bonnie Jean Evans and Nancy June Skrynyk are sisters who inherited approximately 540 acres of farmland near Warner from their father Gordon Evans. That land is the subject of the litigation. The Pittman family and the Evans family have been neighbours for decades. In 1997, the Pittmans began farming the disputed lands through a crop share agreement with Mr. Evans. They continued to do so through successive crop share or lease agreements until December, 31, 2019 when the last lease expired.

In the fall of 2019, the applicants sent an email addressed to the Pittmans advising them that the applicants had decided to sell the remaining piece of their father’s property. This led to a series of communications between the Pittmans and the applicants about the purchase of the disputed lands. Whether those communications resulted in a binding agreement is the underlying issue between the parties.

On April 2, 2020, the respondent filed a caveat on title to the disputed lands claiming a purchaser’s interest. In the meantime, the applicants had been negotiating with another neighbour. By April 2, 2020, the applicants had accepted an offer from the other neighbour to purchase the disputed lands, but that agreement was not registered on title. The new offer was approximately $535,000 higher than the price that the respondent claims it had agreed to with the applicants. In May 2020, the respondent issued a statement of claim alleging that the emails constituted a binding contract for the sale of the lands. The remedy claimed was specific performance, or in the alternative damages. The applicants filed an application for summary dismissal of the respondent’s claim and for discharge of the associated caveat and certificate of lis pendens.

The master in chambers dismissed both of the applicants’ applications. The applicants appealed on the availability of specific performance and the discharge of the caveat and certificate of lis pendens. The chambers judge agreed with the applicants that even if the respondent was ultimately successful in making out a claim for breach of contract, damages would be an adequate remedy. Accordingly, she summarily dismissed the claim for specific performance and discharged the caveat and certificate of lis pendens. The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the chamber judge’s order. A dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal.