Agricultural Law Netletter - Thursday, September 21, 2017

Issue 380

Issues added on the 7th and 21st of every month.

HIGHLIGHTS

A Justice of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench has directed specific performance of an agreement involving the sale of Saskatchewan farm land by requiring that the vendor sell three quarter sections to the purchaser. The Court comments on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Semelhago v Paramadevan which held that specific performance with respect to an agreement for the sale of land should not be granted as a matter of course absent evidence that land is unique to the extent that its substitute would not be readily available, and several Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decisions which consider and interpret this case in relation to Saskatchewan farm land. The Court granted specific performance based on evidence that the three quarter sections owned by the vendor would yield economies of scale in terms of time and cost to the purchaser, which are both critical elements in farming operations. (Bublish v. Turanich, CALN/2017-056, [2017] S.J. No. 359, Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench)

NEW CASE LAW

Bublish v. Turanich;

CALN/2017-056,

Full text: [2017] S.J. No. 359;

2017 SKQB 240,

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench,

R.S. Smith J.,

August 17, 2017.

Specific Performance -- Saskatchewan Farm Land.

A Saskatchewan farmer, Dwayne Bublish ("Bublish") sued another Saskatchewan farmer, Nicholas Turanich ("Turanich") for specific performance of an alleged agreement which would have required Turanich to sell Bublish three quarter sections of Saskatchewan farm land for $210,000.00.

The first issue in the lawsuit was whether there was an enforceable contract between Turanich and Bublish. The second issue was whether Bublish was entitled to specific performance, or whether his only remedy was damages for breach of contract.

Decision: Smith, J concluded [at para. 72] that the parties had reached an enforceable agreement and [at para. 76] granted specific performance was granted.

The primary legal issue was whether specific performance should be granted.

Smith, J referred to the leading decision of Semelhago v Paramadevan, [1996] S.C.J. No. 71 (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 415, which was quoted at length in SaskEnergy Inc. v ADAG Corporation Canada Ltd., [2015] S.J. No. 261, 2015 SKQB 143, 475 Sask R 65. In Semelhago, Sopinka J, speaking for the court, stated, among other things:

22 ...Specific performance should, therefore, not be granted as a matter of course absent evidence that the...