Background
Monica Choiniere and Michael Susak worked as resident property managers for one or both of Retire West Communities Ltd. and Sorrento Place Holdings Ltd., which own and/or operate manufactured home parks. While working at Sorrento Place on the Lake, the respondents negotiated to buy a manufactured home owned by Retire West. Because they could not obtain a conventional mortgage, Retire West agreed to finance the purchase.
After Choiniere requested changes to an initial draft agreement, Retire West sent revised documents naming Choiniere and Susak as purchasers, setting a $157,000 purchase price and requiring a $5,000 deposit. The respondents signed and returned the documents, renovated the home at their expense, moved in, and supplied post-dated cheques corresponding to the promissory note and pad rent. After one or both appellants terminated their employment, Retire West returned the respondents’ $4,000 certified cheque and post-dated cheques and sought to evict them.
The respondents sued, claiming ownership of the home and wrongful termination. On a summary-trial application limited to ownership, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found an enforceable purchase contract and declared the respondents owners, subject to Retire West’s entitlement to a registered charge for the unpaid purchase-price balance. It also held the respondents responsible for pad rent from the date they moved in.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants’ appeal. It held that the summary-trial judge’s rulings on suitability and declaratory relief were discretionary and entitled to deference, while the contract-formation finding was a question of mixed fact and law reviewable for palpable and overriding error. The appellants identified no error meeting those standards.
The ownership issue was sufficiently discrete from the remaining claims for summary determination, and the appellants showed no risk of inconsistent outcomes or error in the judge’s proportionality analysis. Their arguments against contract formation merely sought a different interpretation of the evidence and did not identify an extricable legal error or an obvious and material factual error.
The declaration of ownership was also within the judge’s discretion because damages could not be quantified on the evidence. Although registry steps were required to transfer the registered manufactured home, the appellants had not raised that point below and could not use it to overturn the declaration on appeal. The Court noted that the parties could seek further directions from the summary-trial judge if implementation difficulties arose.
Key Takeaways
- A discrete ownership dispute may be resolved by summary trial even when related employment and counterclaim issues remain for later determination.
- Objective communications, signed purchase documents, payment arrangements, possession, and renovations supported the finding of an enforceable agreement to purchase the manufactured home.
- A party generally cannot overturn discretionary declaratory relief by relying on an implementation issue it declined to develop before the trial judge.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the deference appellate courts give to summary-trial suitability rulings, fact-dependent contract-formation findings, and discretionary remedies. Repeating arguments made below will not justify intervention without a reviewable legal, factual, or discretionary error.
For transactions involving registered manufactured homes, the case also distinguishes a judicial declaration of ownership from the administrative steps needed to implement a transfer. Parties should place those statutory registration requirements squarely before the trial court if they may affect the requested remedy.