Clark’s-Gamble of Canada Ltd. v. Grant Park Plaza Ltd. et al.

Clark’s-Gamble of Canada Ltd. v. Grant Park Plaza Ltd. et al.

The written proposal and lease did not create a covenant prohibiting the landlord from constructing or leasing another department or discount store on the development; the competitive‑use clause did not apply to premises within the same shopping centre and would not have barred the landlord acting as landlord; no building scheme or implied negative covenant arose; and estoppel failed because alleged representations were statements of future intention not facts—therefore injunction refused and appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1967] SCR 614
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Clark’s-Gamble of Canada Limited; Defendant/respondent: Grant Park Plaza Limited; Defendant/respondent: Grant Park Western Limited; Defendant/respondent: Grant Park Eastern Limited; Defendant/respondent (managing Agent): Aronovitch & Leipsic Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1967
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Lease Interpretation, Injunction, Building Scheme, Competitive Use Clause, Estoppel by Representation
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Property Law Lease Interpretation Injunction Building Scheme Competitive Use Clause Estoppel by Representation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clark’s-Gamble of Canada Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Grant Park Plaza Limited

Defendant/respondent

Grant Park Western Limited

Defendant/respondent

Grant Park Eastern Limited

Defendant/respondent

Aronovitch & Leipsic Limited

Defendant/respondent (managing Agent)

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Manitoba

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposal and lease created a covenant preventing leasing any part of the shopping centre to another department or discount store
  2. 2 Whether the competitive-use clause applied to sites within the same shopping centre
  3. 3 Whether the arrangement constituted a building scheme imposing negative covenants on the developer

Ratio Decidendi

The written proposal and lease did not create a covenant prohibiting the landlord from constructing or leasing another department or discount store on the development; the competitive‑use clause did not apply to premises within the same shopping centre and would not have barred the landlord acting as landlord; no building scheme or implied negative covenant arose; and estoppel failed because alleged representations were statements of future intention not facts—therefore injunction refused and appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of Court of Appeal for Manitoba affirmed