Canada: Agricultural Law NetLetter - Sunday, February 21, 2016 - Issue 342


* The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of a Nova Scotia farmer and his farm corporation from the decision of a hearing judge, who found that: the farmer had engaged in oppressive conduct towards the minority shareholder in the corporation; the farmer therefore had to purchase the minority shareholder's shares; the value of those shares should not be reduced to reflect "sweat equity" injected into the corporation by the farmer; and the farmer was not entitled to certain farm property under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, notwithstanding improvements he had made to that property.

On appeal, the farmer argued that the hearing judge erred in finding a juristic reason to deny his claim that the minority shareholder would be unjustly enriched by the forced share purchase. The Court agreed with the hearing judge that the farmer had engaged in oppressive conduct and therefore did not come to court with "clean hands." Accordingly, the Court dismissed this ground of appeal.

The farmer further argued that the hearing judge erred in finding that he was not entitled to the portion of farm property upon which he had made improvements, on the basis that the hearing judge misapplied the test for proprietary estoppel, and inappropriately included an element of mistaken belief in her analysis. However, the Appeal Court found that the very authorities relied upon by the farmer actually supported the hearing judge's application of the test. Specifically, those authorities made reference to an element of mistaken belief on behalf of a claimant that making such improvements would result in obtaining interest in the land. The Court ultimately held that the hearing judge had ample evidence to find that the farmer was not under a mistaken belief as to entitlement, and also dismissed this ground of appeal. (Bellton Farms Ltd. v. Campbell, CALN/2016-004, [2016] N.S.J. No. 22, Nova Scotia Court of Appeal)


Bellton Farms Ltd. v. Campbell;


Full text: [2016] N.S.J. No. 22;

2016 NSCA 1,

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal,

M. MacDonald C.J.N.S., P. Bryson and C.A. Bourgeois JJ.A.,

January 21, 2016.

Oppression Remedies -- Unjust Enrichment -- Proprietary Estoppel -- Admission of Affidavit of Deceased Witness.

In 1980, a dairy farmer, Ralph Campbell, incorporated Bellton Farms Ltd. ("Bellton") and transferred most of his original family farm's assets into that corporation. A wooded, 258 acre tract of land with a cleared portion used for farming, was not included in that transfer. When Ralph Campbell died in 1982, title to that tract passed to his wife, Winnifred Campbell, who subsequently conveyed it to her daughter-in-law, Mary Nova Jane Campbell ("Nova").

Ralph's sons, Alan and Colin, grew up on the family farm. When Ralph incorporated Bellton, 60% of the shares were issued to Alan, 10% were issued to Colin, and 30% remained with Ralph. Two years later, Ralph transferred his shares to Alan, thus increasing Alan's shareholding to 90%.

Although Colin built his home adjacent to the farm, Alan was responsible for the day-to-day farming responsibilities of Bellton. Colin's minor involvement with the farm ended altogether in 1984, after an incident between the two brothers resulted in a long-term breakdown in their relationship.

Alan continued the farming operations of Bellton, which included expansion of the cleared lands held by Winnifred Campbell (and later, Nova). Alan was later diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, making farming activities difficult. Between 2007 and 2009, Bellton proceeded to sell significant farming assets, including livestock and milk quota.

In 2010, Colin and Nova filed an application in which Colin sought oppression remedies against Alan, including an order forcing Alan to purchase Colin's shares. Nova sought various remedies including an order preventing further entry by Alan and Bellton upon the 258 acre tract.

In response, Alan and Bellton filed a Notice of Contention, denying any oppressive conduct and alleging that, through Colin's objectionable behaviour, he had forfeited entitlement to his shareholding in Bellton. It was pled in the alternative that if Colin was held to be entitled to have his shares purchased, the value of those shares ought to be reduced to reflect Alan's sweat equity and personal funds put into Bellton. In response to Nova's claim, Alan and Bellton argued that they had acquired title to the 258 acre tract by way of adverse possession, or in the alternative, that they should receive compensation for improvements made to the tract based on quantum meruit.

In 2013, Alan and Bellton filed a separate Notice of Application against Nova, claiming title to the cleared portion of the tract through adverse possession or proprietary estoppel, or in the alternative, claiming damages for improvements made to the property.

Nova responded by alleging that the requisite elements of Alan and Bellton's claims were absent and ought to be dismissed accordingly.

The applications were ultimately brought as a consolidated application. Beforehand, however, Alan and Bellton brought a preliminary motion to have an affidavit sworn by Winnifred Campbell struck from evidence. Her Affidavit was sworn on April 12, 2013, but she passed away prior to the hearing without having been questioned. The hearing judge received submissions and heard evidence from the parties, and decided that the affidavit ought to be entered into evidence.

In her final decision, following a two-day hearing, the hearing judge made the following conclusions:

  • the claim of proprietary estoppel was not made out on the evidence;
  • Alan and Bellton were not entitled to damages for improvements made to the claimed land;
  • an injunction prohibiting Alan and Bellton from further entry upon the land was appropriate (although an award for past rent and damages in trespass claimed by Nova was denied);
  • Colin did not forfeit his shareholding in Bellton;
  • Alan's conduct as a majority shareholder was oppressive, entitling Colin to an oppression remedy;
  • as an appropriate oppression remedy, Alan was forced to purchase Colin's shares at a specified value; and
  • that value was not reduced to reflect any sweat equity on behalf of Alan.

On appeal, Alan and Bellton advanced the following primary issues:

1. Did the hearing judge commit a reversible error by concluding that Alan was not entitled to sweat equity?

2. Did the hearing judge commit a reversible error by admitting the affidavit of Winnifred Campbell into evidence?

3. Did the hearing judge commit a reversible error by failing to declare that Alan or Bellton obtained title to the cleared portion of land under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel?

Decision: Bourgeois, J. (writing for the Court) dismissed the appeal, finding that: Alan was not entitled to sweat equity; the affidavit of Winnifred Campbell ought to have been introduced into evidence; and Alan and Bellton did not obtain title to the cleared portion of land under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

Regarding the issue of sweat equity, Bourgeois, J. accepted the hearing judge's application of the test for unjust enrichment, specifically that the necessary elements for such a claim are: an enrichment to the defendant; a deprivation to the claimant; and the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment [at para. 21].

Bourgeois, J. found that the Appellants took issue with the manner in which the hearing judge applied legal principles to the facts, and did not allege any extricable legal error. As such, Bourgeois, J. held that the standard of review of the hearing judge's decision regarding unjust enrichment ought to be that of palpable and overriding error [at para. 24].

The Appellants argued that the hearing judge erred in finding a juristic reason for the enrichment. However, Bourgeois, J. found that the Appellants did not challenge the hearing judge's finding of oppressive conduct and that Alan did not come to court with "clean hands" [at para. 28]. She noted the hearing judge's finding that in 1984, Alan ran Colin off the farm in a threatening manner, took the accounting and bookwork from Colin, and ultimately froze out Colin from any further involvement in the farm enterprise.

Bourgeois, J. held that the hearing judge had ample evidence to support her conclusion that there was a juristic reason to deny Alan's claim for sweat equity, namely that he did not come to court with "clean hands", and dismissed this ground of appeal [at para. 32].

Regarding the admission of Winnifred Campbell's affidavit, the hearing judge relied on legal authorities, including R v Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57, which dealt with the admission of hearsay evidence. The hearing judge summarized the relevant principles from R v Khelawon, explaining that the party who wishes to adduce hearsay evidence must show that is necessary and reliable [at para. 34].

In that regard, the hearing judge found that Winnifred Campbell's affidavit was necessary, because she had passed away, and reliable, because it was sworn under oath [at para. 35]. She further found that the potential prejudicial effect of entering the affidavit into evidence was outweighed by its probative value and that Alan did not appear to contest the contents of the affidavit [at para. 35].

Bourgeois, J. held that the Appellants did not point to any error regarding the application of these legal principles by the hearing judge, nor to any palpable and overriding error [at para. 36]. Rather, Bourgeois, J. found that the Appellants simply repeated their arguments that admitting the affidavit into evidence would result in prejudice and that this prejudice had since come to fruition. However, they failed to point to anything in support of that claim. As a result, Bourgeois, J. dismissed this ground of appeal [at para. 37].

Regarding the issue of proprietary estoppel, Bourgeois, J. found that the Appellants did not suggest that the hearing judge failed to identify the proper test for proprietary estoppel, but rather that she had misapplied the test [at para. 39]. Bourgeois, J. noted that this would typically attract the standard of palpable and overriding error upon review.

However, Bourgeois, J. found that the Appellants attempted to introduce a new argument during oral submissions [at para. 39 and 40]. The Appellants argued that the hearing judge erred in law by inappropriately adding a new element to the test for proprietary estoppel - that the claimant must mistakenly believe that he would obtain an interest in the claimed property. Bourgeois, J., however, noted that the legal authorities relied upon by the Appellants themselves made reference to this element of mistaken belief, thereby supporting the hearing judge's application of the test for proprietary estoppel [at para. 41 to 47].

Applying this test, the hearing judge found that neither Alan nor Bellton were under a mistaken belief regarding their entitlement to the claimed property and denied their claim. Bourgeois, J. noted that this was a factual finding which was not challenged by the Appellants and was amply supported by the evidence [at para. 49]. Bourgeois, J. therefore dismissed this ground of appeal on that basis alone, and did not engage in further review of the hearing judge's analysis of the other requisite factors.

Previously published by LexisNexis

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.