Marleen van Ham

The plaintiffs, a son and daughter-in-law, took over the operation of the defendants' family dairy farm based on an understanding that they would eventually acquire the farm and milk quota on favourable terms.

After six years of operating the dairy and making significant investments of time and money, the relationship broke down and the plaintiffs were forced to leave.

The plaintiffs sued for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched by certain improvements to the property and that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met because the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' assurances to their detriment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $405,000 in damages, while allowing $2,000 on the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

In a dispute arising from the sale of a farm property with a large swine barn, the purchasers by counterclaim alleged negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with economic interests, and breach of the duty of good faith after discovering on closing that the barn was empty of pigs.

The court held the purchasers had been told there was no written hog supply contract and that the arrangement with the supplier was merely an 'evergreen' verbal arrangement terminable at will.

Applying the negligent misrepresentation framework and the Supreme Court's articulation of honest performance in Bhasin, the court found no actionable misrepresentation and no dishonest contractual performance.

The purchasers received the farm property they had contracted to buy, and the counterclaim for the loss on subsequent resale was dismissed.