Adam Beyhum

The applicants sought leave to appeal or to set aside three arbitral awards arising from a family business dispute over the separation of the G&L Group.

The respondent brought a cross-application to enforce the awards.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the alleged errors of law were in fact questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and that the arbitrator's conduct was not procedurally egregious.

The court granted the respondent's application to enforce the arbitral awards and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought final declarations of remaining indebtedness against the respondents following the liquidation of real estate project securities by a court-appointed receiver.

The respondents raised several defences, including the expiry of limitation periods, alleged obstruction of a retail unit sale, bad faith, and failure to exhaust recourse.

The court dismissed all defences, finding the claims were brought within the limitation period due to acknowledgments and waivers, and that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial.

The application was granted, and judgment was ordered against the respondents for the shortfall amounts totaling approximately $36 million.

The plaintiffs moved to enforce a $600,000 settlement reached at mediation for injuries sustained when the plaintiff was struck by a construction fence.

The defendants opposed enforcement, arguing the settlement was vitiated by fraud because the insurance agent who authorized the settlement had issued a fake policy, leaving the defendants uninsured.

The court granted the motion, finding that defence counsel had apparent authority to bind the defendants and that the alleged fraud by a third party did not invalidate the agreement.

The court held it would be unjust to shift the burden of the insurance fraud onto the innocent plaintiff, and the defendants must pursue their remedies against the insurance intermediaries.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' fresh-as-amended statement of claim, which primarily asserted an unwritten partnership between the parties in connection with two Toronto-area real estate development projects.

The court found the alleged partnership was unsupported by the pleaded facts, noting the parties had created multiple corporate and limited partnership entities with express no-partnership and entire agreement clauses.

All causes of action — breach of fiduciary duty, duty of good faith, tortious interference with economic relations, breach of contract, and oppression — were struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Leave to amend was denied, and the respondents' cross-motions to convert the parallel application to an action and consolidate the proceedings were also dismissed.

The appellant sought reconsideration of a decision that awarded her $11,499.07 in damages for breach of warranty, arguing she was entitled to $67,969.50.

She alleged the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by disregarding her evidence and erred in law by failing to apply the Consumer Protection Act and Sale of Goods Act.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and noting that the other statutes were outside its jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that prevented them from discontinuing their action against certain defendants and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against those defendants.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in interpreting the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding when pleadings are closed in a multi-defendant action, clarifying that pleadings are not closed until they are complete against all defendants.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's alternative finding that the notice of discontinuance constituted an abuse of process and affirmed the grant of summary judgment, as well as the award of substantial indemnity costs, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the action was frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant credit union sought an order appointing a receiver and manager over the property and assets of the respondent hotel franchisee and its owner due to significant loan defaults.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing they had a plan to sell the property and refinance to pay off their creditors.

The court found the respondents' proposed sale agreement was not firm and lacked evidence of financial viability.

Concluding that the applicant's security was at risk and a receiver was necessary to stabilize the business, the court granted the application and appointed the receiver, though it declined to authorize an immediate assignment into bankruptcy.