Law 2101 Chapter Notes - Chapter 6-8: Byrsonima Crassifolia, Punitive Damages, The Starphoenix
3 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Property Cases
Real Property — Lockmac Holdings v. Earle
-Applicant (Lockmac) owns land in Saint John, in 1937 this land was subject to
restrictions
-“Any buildings must be single or semi detached”
-Applicant asks the court to order the restrictive covenant “does not run with the land
and is therefore invalid against the applicant”
-Personal covenants: enforceable only by or against original parties to the deed
-Covenants that run with the land can be enforced by or against subsequent owners of
specific lands
-Runs with the land in 2 circumstances:
-where the covenant, whether or not expressly made binding upon the
successors and assigns of the grantee to whom it is initially conveyed, is
expressly stated to run for the benefit of described lands; or,
-the land against which the convenient is to run nd the land for the benefit of
which the covenant is to run are both part of a common building scheme
-Decided because they did not define the land to be benefited as to make it easily
ascertainable and it was contrary to the minimum requirement set out in another
previous case and it was not made in the context of a building scheme within the
requirements of other cases it is a personal covenant and therefore does not run
with the land
-The deed was a personal covenant and it does not run with the land
-It does not run with the land because the deed itself did not define the land to be
benefited, nor was it part of a building scheme.
- Result: Previous restrictive covenant is invalid and cannot be enforced by the
respondents. The covenant does not affect the applicants title to the property
Peters v. Peters
- Couple acquired a cottage
- Transferred the property to their three sons, assuming they would each enjoy the
property equally as a family residence
- Mother dies, sons begin to argue over when they can use the house in the summer,
payments, keeping the property managed
-Judge saw that the 3 brothers could no longer manage the property as joint owners,
so there was an order for the sale of the property
Semelhago v. Paramadevan
- Worked out a plan to finance a house which S was buying from P (S took out a
mortgage on his current house so he could pay for new house from P)
!1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
- Before closing date, P told S he was changing his mind and wasn’t selling the house
and refused to close the deal
- S sued for breach of contract: the value of the house increased, he was entitled to the
money on the new house (also his original house increased too so he said he was
entitled to that money)
- Trial court held that S was entitled to the increase of value
- P appealed that S shouldn’t be entitled to both increased of the houses
- The court of appeal allowed it
- S appealed again and Supreme court which reversed the appeal to the same as trial
court
Result = SCC introduced new rule that limits the remedy of specific performance to
situations where the plaintiff has legitimate grounds for saying that monetary damages
would not provide an adequate remedy. Common law has generally found every piece
of land as unique but nowadays, properties are mass produced, so its not unique now.
Personal Property — Thomas v. Canada
-Plaintiff (Thomas) received $18,000 in his post box, neither he or wife knew sender or
who was supposed to get money
- Thomas opened envelope, not paying attention to address of shipper
- Took money to police, intended receiver denied that he should have received it,
couldn’t identify who sent it
- Attorney general said Thomas not entitled to money, they said it remained property of
Canada post
- Thomas claimed he was lawfully entitled to the cash
- Defence said that Canada post does not have a better claim to money than Thomas
but that Thomas was not entitled to it because he was never in lawful possession of it
- Canada argued Thomas did not find the money, because money was not lost in the
first place, it was misplaced
- The court found that because Thomas did not knowingly open mail that was not
addressed to him, and b/c he turned money to police, he is not in wrong, court found
that Thomas has the superior claim to the money. Both parties are limited to
possessory title of the money.
Weitzner v. Herman
-Guy hides money in a fire estingisher, his wife doesn’t know and when he dies after
the house is transferred to her.. sells the house. Who is entiled to the money?
-The original owner is entiled to the money because netiher party knew about
it and it wasn’t included in the sale agreement therefore it was never
transferred and the sale did not include the hidden $130 000
-Basic and ancient finders keepers rule, unless the true owner is known, in which case
it is entitled to go back to the true owner
- Mr. Weitzner stashed 130k in basement of his house, he died but his wife lived and
sold the house
!2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
- House was sold to Herman and he got the house contracted and the money was found
- Herman’s bought the house and are technically entitled to everything in the house,
hence they believe they should get the money
- Judge said it was clear no one knew money was there, therefore possibility of it
being included in the transaction was not known to either parties, Mrs. W got the
$$
Longley v. Mitchell Fur Company
- Fur storage company accepted a valuable fur coat for storage
- Coat was stolen by thieves even though building was secured from forced entry
- Owner of coat sued storage company for value of stolen coat
- Defence said company took reasonable care to protect the good from being stolen
- Court said storage company was obliged to show that it took reasonable care and was
not negligent
- Case was dismissed b/c they weren’t negligent
Smith and Sons ltd v. Silverman
- Sussman (employed by the plaintiff) parked a company car in downtown parking lot
- The ticket he received clearly said “we are not responsible for theft or damages” and
there were signs that said the same thing
- Car got damaged and the company sued the parking lot for negligence
- Issue: whether the defendant was liable for the damage to the car
- Court said a reasonable person would have taken notice of the language on the ticket
and the signs. The court held the defendant had done what was reasonable to bring the
disclaimer to Sussman;s attention, even though Sussman in fact did not know about the
disclaimer. The case against parking lot was dismissed
Intellectual property — Harvard v. Canada (commissioner of patents)
-Harvard wants to patent a mouse that has been genetically altered to increase its
susceptibility to cancer making it useful for research (also wants to cover all non
human mamals which have been similarly altered)
-They tried to get a patent in Canada but didn’t work because they tried to patent a
mammal, federal court of appeal gave them the patent
-Machine and manufacture in the patent act do not mean living creatures and so
composition of matter is best read to also not include living things
-SOC overturned the appeal and they lost the patent because they said you cant
patent a mouse because it is a higher life form
-Consensus that human life is not patentable but they sent the case to distinguish
lower and higher life forms to parliament to enact legislature to deal with
Invention: Any new and useful art, process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter or any new and useful improvement in any art, process, machines manufacturer
or composition of matter
!3
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Applicant (lockmac) owns land in saint john, in 1937 this land was subject to restrictions. Any buildings must be single or semi detached . Applicant asks the court to order the restrictive covenant does not run with the land and is therefore invalid against the applicant . Personal covenants: enforceable only by or against original parties to the deed. Covenants that run with the land can be enforced by or against subsequent owners of speci c lands. Runs with the land in 2 circumstances: Where the covenant, whether or not expressly made binding upon the successors and assigns of the grantee to whom it is initially conveyed, is expressly stated to run for the bene t of described lands; or, The land against which the convenient is to run nd the land for the bene t of which the covenant is to run are both part of a common building scheme.
