Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 AUGUST 2016

Agricultural Law NetLetter - Thursday, July 21, 2016

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

The Alberta Court of Appeal has rejected the argument that an agreement entered into between a son, which granted him an option to purchase and a right of refusal with respect to two quarter sections of farmland at 50% of fair market value, was invalid on public policy grounds as a restraint on alienation.

CanadaReal Estate and Construction

HIGHLIGHTS

* The Alberta Court of Appeal has rejected the argument that an agreement entered into between a son, which granted him an option to purchase and a right of refusal with respect to two quarter sections of farmland at 50% of fair market value, was invalid on public policy grounds as a restraint on alienation. The agreement had been entered into as part of an estate and tax planning process. The son had farmed the land, and had paid rent to his mother for 3 decades before she challenged the validity of the agreement. The Court did not comment on the law with respect to policy against restraint on alienation, except to the extent that it concluded the policy did not apply in this case. (Rowland v. Rowland, CALN/2016-017, [2016] A.J. No. 439, Alberta Court of Appeal)

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from