Case information

Civil procedure — Estoppel — What constitutes a representation that attracts a remedy within the doctrine of proprietary estoppel in light of Canadian and United Kingdom decisions taking a holistic and contextual view of all three steps of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel — Whether the doctrine of proprietary estoppel should be expanded in Canada to include property other than real property?

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.

Owners of a multi-farm farming operation that included a dairy operation discussed succession with their son and his partner. The son and his partner purchased the dairy herd and took over management of the dairy operation while the owners continued to work the rest of the farm. The son and his partner did not then buy quota or the barn housing the dairy. Discussions of succession ended after the relationship became acrimonious and the son and his partner were unable to secure financing on terms that enabled them to purchase the business. The son and his partner left and had to sell their herd and to sell or abandon equipment. They brought an action claiming $1,300,000 for unjust enrichment. The trial judge awarded $405,000 based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment and $2,000 on a counter-claim. The Court of Appeal held there was no proof of an assurance or representation upon which to apply the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. It set aside the award based on proprietary estoppel, reducing the damages awarded to the son and his partner to $33,700 based on unjust enrichment.