McFarland v. Hauser et al.

McFarland v. Hauser et al.

The Court held McFarland had validly exercised his contractual right of first refusal; Mrs. Hauser’s written consent plus her testimony cured any s.6 defect under the Dower Act; Sunderland’s option and caveat were subject to McFarland’s prior equitable right because Sunderland took with knowledge and his instrument expressly qualified the lease; therefore McFarland was entitled to specific performance against Hauser and removal of Sunderland’s caveat.

Citation
[1979] 1 SCR 337
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Barry Glen McFarland; Defendant/respondent: John Hauser; Defendant/respondent: Thomas F. Sunderland
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1978
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Property Specific Performance) / On Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Appellate Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Right of First Refusal, Dower Consent and Acknowledgement, Caveat and Lis Pendens, Priority of Interests, Option to Purchase, Notice and Constructive Fraud
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Land Registration Law Family/dower Law Specific Performance Right of First Refusal Dower Consent and Acknowledgement Caveat and Lis Pendens +3 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Glen McFarland

Plaintiff/appellant

John Hauser

Defendant/respondent

Thomas F. Sunderland

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Property Specific Performance) / On Appeal From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta to the Supreme Court of Canada (final Appellate Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant validly exercised a contractual right of first refusal
  2. 2 Whether spousal consent/acknowledgment under the Dower Act invalidated the right
  3. 3 Whether respondent purchaser's option and caveat acquired priority under the Land Titles Act despite notice of prior unregistered interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held McFarland had validly exercised his contractual right of first refusal; Mrs. Hauser’s written consent plus her testimony cured any s.6 defect under the Dower Act; Sunderland’s option and caveat were subject to McFarland’s prior equitable right because Sunderland took with knowledge and his instrument expressly qualified the lease; therefore McFarland was entitled to specific performance against Hauser and removal of Sunderland’s caveat.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored.

Orders

  • Specific performance ordered against John Hauser: transfer of lands to Barry Glen McFarland for $190,000 on compliance with terms.
  • Order for removal of Thomas F. Sunderland’s caveat from title.