Van Dyke v Sidhu

The case of *Van Dyke v Sidhu* concerned a dispute where a man had made promises to a woman regarding the transfer of a cottage property. The property was jointly owned by the man and his wife, and its separate transfer was contingent upon the approval and registration of a subdivision plan. The woman claimed proprietary estoppel, asserting she had acted to her detriment in reliance on these promises.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the preconditions to the property's transferability affected the proprietary estoppel claim. It also had to consider whether the woman had acted to her detriment in reliance on the promises, particularly in light of her inconclusive answers regarding what she would have done had the promises not been made, and whether it was unconscionable for the man to resile from his promises. Furthermore, the court needed to address the appropriate form of relief where a third-party interest (that of the wife) subsisted in the promised property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders. It held that equitable compensation was an appropriate remedy, to be determined by the court. The reasoning involved applying principles of equitable estoppel, considering the unconscionability of the promisor's conduct and the need to fashion relief that accounted for the existing interest of the joint owner. The court found that the man's conduct was unconscionable and that the woman was entitled to compensation.

Consequently, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff equitable compensation, with the quantum to be determined by the Court of Appeal. The defendant was also ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings and the appeal. The matter was remitted to the Equity Division for the determination of the quantum of equitable compensation.