A. Colquhoun

The applicant, Joe Hamrak, sought directions regarding the validity of two wills made by the deceased, John Joseph Hamrak.

The court found that the 2022 Will was valid and the 2023 Will invalid due to the testator's lack of testamentary capacity at the time of the latter's execution.

The court also addressed the loss of the original 2022 Will, the improper transfer of funds, and the allocation of costs from the estate.

The plaintiff, Wilderness North Air, was awarded a contract by Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. (Remotes) to be the primary vendor for the delivery of diesel fuel by air to five remote First Nations communities.

After the contract was awarded, several First Nations communities issued Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) stating they would only accept fuel delivered by Wasaya Airways, a First Nations-owned airline that had been unsuccessful in the bidding process.

Remotes subsequently cancelled Wilderness's purchase orders for four of the communities and awarded the work to Wasaya and another carrier.

Wilderness sued Remotes for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith, and sued Wasaya for inducing breach of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice found that Remotes breached the contract and its duty of good faith, and that Wasaya induced the breach.

Wilderness was awarded $2,718,988 in damages, with Wasaya jointly and severally liable for $856,458.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment seeking approximately $936,000 in damages for alleged breach of contract.

The court raised several concerns, including a significant discrepancy between the amount claimed in the motion and the estimated damages in the statement of claim, the lack of a clear contractual basis for the claimed lost opportunities, and the plaintiff's failure to properly prove damages by not accounting for costs.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to re-file with further and better evidence.

The applicants sought declarations that their former home insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation regarding the sale of their property.

The insurer denied coverage, citing contractual liability exclusion, late notice, and alleged misrepresentation by the insured.

The court applied the Scalera test for duty to defend, finding that while the alleged property damage could fall within coverage, an "entire agreement" clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale precluded reliance on oral misrepresentations.

Consequently, the claims were, in substance, based on representations in the sales contract, which were excluded by the policy's contractual liability exclusion.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle with liquor readily available contrary to section 32(1) of the Liquor Licence Act.

The defendant was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle with an open can of beer in the passenger's hand and another open can of beer in the back seat.

The defendant argued that he did not have care or control of the vehicle and relied on the Criminal Code definition of care or control from R. v. Toews.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of care or control should apply in the regulatory context of the Liquor Licence Act, not the Criminal Code definition.

The court found the defendant guilty, as he was occupying the driver's seat, admitted to being the driver, had control of his keys, and made no effort to prevent his passenger from consuming liquor in the vehicle.