Miller v. Ameri-Cana Motel Ltd.

Miller v. Ameri-Cana Motel Ltd.

For the purposes of s.29 of The Planning Act the grantor of an option does not 'retain the fee' in the optioned lands because the option vests an equitable interest and deprives the grantor of disposing power; therefore neither the agreement nor the exercise violated s.29 and specific performance was properly ordered.

Citation
[1983] 1 SCR 229
Parties
Appellant: John W. Miller; Appellant: James Miller; Respondent: Ameri-Cana Motel Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 1983
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Options, Subdivision Control, Specific Performance, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Property Law Real Property Planning Law Options Subdivision Control Specific Performance Statutory Interpretation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John W. Miller

Appellant

James Miller

Appellant

Ameri-Cana Motel Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether grantor of an option retains the fee in abutting lands pending exercise of the option for the purposes of s.29 of The Planning Act
  2. 2 Whether the option agreements and their exercise violated s.29 of The Planning Act and thus prevented specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

For the purposes of s.29 of The Planning Act the grantor of an option does not 'retain the fee' in the optioned lands because the option vests an equitable interest and deprives the grantor of disposing power; therefore neither the agreement nor the exercise violated s.29 and specific performance was properly ordered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order granting specific performance of both option agreements upheld