Lebel v. Winzen Land Corp., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 918

Madeleine Lebel Appellant

v.

Winzen Land Corporation Ltd. Respondent

indexed as: lebel v. winzen land corp.

File No.: 19690.

1987: May 12; 1989: April 20.

Present: Beetz, Lamer, Wilson, Le Dain* and La Forest JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for quebec

Civil procedure -- Authorization to institute class action -- Allegation by applicant that Act to preserve agricultural land prevented seller from conveying ownership of lots sold to buyers -- Buyers seeking to annul contracts and be reimbursed for monies paid -- Whether facts alleged in application seem to justify conclusions sought -- Code of Civil Procedure, art. 1003 -- Act to preserve agricultural land, S.Q. 1978, c. 10.

The facts of the case at bar are almost identical to those in Venne v. Quebec (Commission de protection du territoire agricole), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 000. Appellant belongs to a group of 600 buyers who purchased from respondent lots located in the St-Hubert area pursuant to a standard contract of sale. In her motion in the Superior Court for authorization to institute a class action, appellant argued that the Act to preserve agricultural land henceforth prevented respondent from conveying to her ownership of the lots purchased in a way that could be set up against the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, and she asked the Court to annul the contracts signed by the members of the group and to order that monies already paid to respondent be reimbursed. The Superior Court dismissed appellant's motion because the facts alleged did not seem to "justify the conclusions sought" (art. 1003(b) C.C.P.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.

Held: The appeal should be allowed.

In view of Venne, supra, the facts stated in the motion for authorization to institute a class action "seem to justify the conclusions sought" by that motion. The matter should be referred back to the Superior Court for it to determine whether the criteria of paras. (a), (c) and (d) of art. 1003 C.C.P. had been met.

Case Cited

Applied: Venne v. Quebec (Commission de protection du territoire agricole), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 000, rev'g [1985] C.A. 703, aff'g Sup. Ct. Mtl., No. 500-05-009403-823, September 16, 1982.

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Act to preserve agricultural land, S.Q. 1978, c. 10, s. 1.3 [am. 1982, c. 40, s. 1].

Code of Civil Procedure, R.S.Q., c. C-25, art. 1003(b) [ad. 1978, c. 8, s. 3].

APPEAL from a judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal[^1], affirming a judgment of the Superior Court[^2], dismissing appellant's motion for authorization to institute a class action. Appeal allowed.

André Johnson and René Delorme, for the appellant.

Robert Dulude, Q.C., for the respondent.

//Beetz J.//

English version of the judgment of the Court delivered by

BEETZ J. -- This is a motion for authorization to institute a class action (art. 1003 C.C.P.) on behalf of all persons who bought lots from respondent included in a "designated agricultural region" following the passage of the Act to preserve agricultural land, S.Q. 1978, c. 10 (the Act), and for which no conveyance of ownership was made before the date on which the Act took effect. Appellant argued that the Act prevented respondent from conveying her ownership of the lots in a way that could be set up against the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, and she is asking the Court to annul the contracts signed by the members of the group she seeks to represent and to order that monies already paid to respondent be reimbursed.

The facts of the case at bar are almost identical to those in Venne v. Quebec (Commission de protection du territoire agricole), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 000, judgment which was rendered today. Appellant belongs to a group of 600 buyers who, like Mr. Venne, purchased from respondent lots located in the area of the St-Hubert municipality pursuant to a standard contract of sale titled "Contract for Deed". Like Mr. Venne, the right of ownership had not yet been conveyed to appellant and the people she seeks to represent for the lots they bought when the Act took effect. I therefore refer to the statement of facts in that judgment.

The conclusions sought by Mr. Venne, who now has the right of ownership but a voidable one, are the antithesis of the conclusions sought by appellant. However, Vaillancourt J. rendered judgment in Venne v. Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec, Sup. Ct. Mtl., No. 500-05-009403-823, on September 16, 1982, before Provost J. could render judgment in the case at bar. Provost J. felt he was bound by the judgment of Vaillancourt J., who considered that Winzen Land Corporation Ltd. could convey ownership of the lots sold to Mr. Venne without infringing the Act. Appellant's application was accordingly dismissed, because the facts alleged did not seem to justify the conclusions sought (art. 1003(b) C.C.P.) Provost J. did not consider the other criteria stated in art. 1003 C.C.P. The Court of Appeal in due course dismissed appellant's appeal, relying on the reasons in its judgment in Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec v. Venne, [1985] C.A. 703.

At the Court's request the two parties each filed a supplementary submission dealing with the amendment to the Act on July 1, 1982. Six words were added to the legislative definition of "alienation", contained in s. 1(3) of the Act:

"alienation" means any conveyance or any declaratory act of ownership of property . . . . [Emphasis added.]

The parties were agreed in saying, for different reasons, that the 1982 amendment does not affect the outcome of the case. That is also my opinion.

For the reasons stated in Venne v. Quebec (Commission de protection du territoire agricole), supra, I consider that the facts stated in the motion for authorization to institute a class action "seem to justify the conclusions sought" by that motion. I would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court judgment and refer the matter back to the Superior Court for it to determine whether the criteria of paras. (a), (c) and (d) of art. 1003 C.C.P. have been met: the whole with costs throughout.

Appeal allowed with costs.

Solicitors for the appellant: Stein, Monast, Pratte & Marseille, Québec.

Solicitors for the respondent: Poliquin, Coutu, Bernier, Montréal.

• Le Dain J. took no part in the judgment.

[^1]: C.A. Mtl., No. 500-09-001549-823, November 11, 1985.

[^2]: Sup. Ct. Mtl., No. 500-06-000007-829, November 5, 1982.