What type of improvement action provides ground for propriety estoppel (an equitable relief declaring land to be granted not in accordance with the Will).
Mulholland v BMO Trust Co. 2019 ONSC 5785; 148 OR(3d) 337
The son worked on the farm for 27 years as manager. These cases often see both parties on the land and the question is whether the claimant really did improve or was tolerated by the true owner. In this case Dad worked in a bank five days a week (para 14) and was disabled for all or substantially all of the period (para 23). The Mother had a hard time contesting the Claimant’s manager role since she herself called him that in her own press release (para 30).
Query the case where Dad is everyday managing the farm and Claimant is merely the second in command of a two man operation?
Apparently the Claimant son expanded the horse operation (para 15), designed and built numerous buildings and offices. (para 16-17).
Query whether this is a critical minimum of quantum meruit type improvement, or whether mowing the lawn every month would have sufficed for something?
Most importantly the Claimant asserted oral promises by the father as to an interest in the land as compensation for unpaid work. The opposing party does not strictly deny the promises (para 18). The Mother’s evidence was ‘not to my knowledge’ (para 26). The promises are supported by two other brothers. (para 20)
Query what would happen if the existence of the oral promise were contested?
The Claimant detailed the promise to the effect that it constituted 1.44 acres with plans that the Deceased drew up including location and further conduct evidence by the Deceased buying a stand of cedar trees as a boundary line (para 24). This the opposing Mother did contest although her evidence is comical and shows Woodley J.’s sense of wit. Judge: Why was the target property boundaried off? Mom: Well that’s where we might put a farm manager (para 25).
This was the precise job the Claimant son had been doing for 27 years and the precise reason he claimed the lot. The Mother’s evidence inadvertently supported the Claimant.
Query what if the Claimant submitted invoices?
Because there was no documentary evidence on this point it was left without definitive discussion. The question remains open in future cases.
note: The judge makes a grammatical mistake in the final sentence of para 32. The judge wanted to say that the court would have drawn a negative inference against Nancy, not in favour of Nancy.
What the Claimant did show was that he made $1050 per month and asserted that he would have earned in excess of three times that amount in the ordinary marketplace (para 39).
Findings:
Property was improved by Claimant’s effort as per Claimant’s part of the promise and the Will supported such an inference (para 42).
Query: what if the Will had been silent?
Specific intent is not required for an equitable interest in land (para 41(7)), where there is an intent to benefit through conveyance and the Claimant does the work on his side of the promise, equity honours the intent through promissory estoppel (para 41 (8))
The judge found reliance (detriment) by the Claimant (para 42).
Promissory estoppel requires: a representation (express or implied (para 44)), reasonable reliance, detriment (para 43)
Parenthetically, Woodley J. relies upon a contract case to arrive at proprietary estoppel. (para 47).
The court issued a declaration of trust over the target parcel that had been fenced off. (para 59).
