Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Appellate courts owed deference to the summary trial judge's findings on suitability, contract formation, and remedy in this dispute over ownership of a manufactured home.
   
• During a telephone call, Retire West's principal told the respondents to "treat it as your own" and that he would "sort out the paperwork" upon his return to Canada, supporting a finding that a binding contract had been formed.
   
• Damages were deemed an inappropriate remedy because the evidence did not permit quantification, leaving declaratory relief as the judge's chosen approach.
   
• Proportionality considerations weighed against requiring a full 13-day trial for a dispute involving an amount under $150,000.
   
• Registration requirements under the Manufactured Home Act were raised for the first time on appeal and could not be used to overturn the trial judge's order.
   
• Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found no error warranting intervention and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
   

Facts of the case

Monica Choiniere and Michael Susak worked as resident property managers for Retire West Communities Ltd. and Sorrento Place Holdings Ltd. at a manufactured home park called Sorrento Place on the Lake. While employed there, the parties negotiated for Choiniere and Susak to purchase a manufactured home owned by Retire West. Retire West agreed to finance the purchase since the respondents could not obtain a conventional mortgage. On December 3, 2021, Retire West's employee, Kim Sawchuk, sent a draft contract fixing the purchase price at $150,000 and requiring an $8,000 deposit; Choiniere requested changes, including reducing the deposit to $4,000 and naming her and Susak as purchasers, and sent a certified cheque for $4,000 on December 29, 2021. On January 1, 2022, Susak spoke by phone with Retire West's principal, Aldo Venier, who was in Hawaii; Venier told him to "treat it as your own" and that he would "sort out the paperwork" upon returning to Canada. The respondents then began repairing and renovating the home at their own expense. On February 8, 2022, Sawchuk sent a revised draft contract, backdated to January 1, 2022, reflecting the requested purchaser names, a $5,000 deposit, and a purchase price of $157,000 that accounted for rental arrears. The respondents signed and returned the documents, moved into the home on March 1, 2022, and provided post-dated cheques matching the promissory note and pad rental payments. One or both appellants terminated the respondents' employment on April 25 or 26, 2022, after which Retire West returned the $4,000 certified cheque and the post-dated cheques.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The application giving rise to the appeal was brought under Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009, governing summary trial procedure. The appellants also argued that the respondents had breached a "time of the essence" clause in the revised contract, which required them, within 24 hours of the completion date, to pay a $5,000 deposit — though only $4,000 had been paid — and deliver the necessary registration documents to Retire West. The trial judge rejected this argument, finding the parties had contemplated a delay in Mr. Venier's signing given his presence in Hawaii, and noting the contract stipulated a completion date of January 1, 2022, even though it was not provided to the respondents until February 8. On appeal, the appellants additionally pointed to registration requirements found in the Manufactured Home Act, S.B.C. 2003, c. 75, and the Manufactured Home Regulation, B.C. Reg. 441/2003, arguing that further steps under these provisions were needed to complete the transfer of ownership of the home, which had been registered with the manufactured home registry. However, the appellants conceded at the hearing of the appeal that this argument had not been raised before the summary trial judge.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Iyer, writing for the Court of Appeal, identified three issues on appeal: whether the matter was suitable for summary trial, whether an enforceable contract existed, and whether the judge erred in exercising his discretion to grant declaratory relief. Because the first and third issues involved an exercise of discretion, the applicable standard of review was deferential, while the second issue, involving mixed fact and law, attracted a standard of palpable and overriding error. On suitability, the court found the appellants had not identified any error in principle, noting the trial judge's conclusion that the ownership claim against Retire West was discrete from the wrongful dismissal claims, and that the appellants had not addressed the proportionality principle underlying the judge's reasoning. On contract formation, the court held that the appellants' arguments merely reiterated their position below regarding how the evidence should be interpreted, and that they had failed to identify any factual error meeting the threshold for appellate intervention; the trial judge had concluded that the February 8 draft contract, viewed by an objective bystander, constituted an offer accepted when the respondents executed and returned the documents. On declaratory relief, the court rejected the argument that the judge was required to discuss cases cited by a party, and found the judge had reasonably exercised his discretion by concluding that damages could not be quantified and that the record did not clearly establish whether further steps were needed to give effect to the contract. Regarding the registration argument raised under the Manufactured Home Act, the court held it was not open to the appellants to raise this ground for the first time on appeal, particularly where counsel had characterized the issue as a "side issue" when questioned by the trial judge.

Ruling and overall outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellants had not demonstrated any error justifying appellate intervention on the issues of suitability, contract formation, or declaratory relief. The respondents, Choiniere and Susak, succeeded in maintaining the trial judge's declaration that they were the owners of the manufactured home, with Retire West entitled to a registered charge against the home for the balance of the purchase price and the respondents required to pay pad rent from the date they occupied the home; the decision does not specify a monetary damages award, as the summary trial judge had found the evidence insufficient to quantify damages and instead granted declaratory relief.