Adrian C. Lang

The respondent previously succeeded on an appeal declaring that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.

The resulting order included a paragraph directing compliance with the agreement, which the motion judge subsequently interpreted as requiring the appellants to assert their repudiation claim in a new action rather than as an excuse for non-performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal, finding that the original panel had not considered the disputed paragraph or its implications for the repudiation claim.

The court set aside the motion judge's order and directed the parties to submit their questions directly to the original panel for clarification.

The appellants and the Law Foundation of Ontario sought leave to appeal costs orders made by the case management judge following the dismissal of several proposed class actions against automobile insurers.

The motion judge had awarded costs to the successful insurers, including substantial indemnity costs where the plaintiffs persisted with unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and deceit to overcome limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding entitlement or scale of costs.

The appellant, Apotex Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision allowing the respondents to amend their claim to substitute two Québec representative plaintiffs in an Ontario class action.

Apotex argued that the action lacked a real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Ontario was not the convenient forum, and that the action was an abuse of process due to parallel Québec proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because Apotex resides and carries on business in Ontario.

The court also held that it was premature to determine forum non conveniens on a motion to amend, and accepted counsel's undertaking that the Québec proceedings would not advance pending the Ontario certification decision, thereby negating the abuse of process claim.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his application to amend his statement of claim to plead illegal consideration.

The Master and the appeal judge had refused the amendment, finding it an abuse of process because a judge on a prior interlocutory injunction motion ruled the allegation did not raise a triable issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a refusal to grant an interlocutory injunction is a preliminary decision and does not finally determine the cause of action.

The appellant was granted leave to amend his statement of claim.

The appellant appealed from a judgment dismissing its application and ordering a trial on issues relating to a contractual relationship with the respondent.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in finding a pivotal provision regarding a 90-day cooling-off period for share purchases ambiguous and incomprehensible.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the application judge's exercise of discretion, agreeing that the combination of ambiguity and conflict in the record warranted a trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached during mediation of a defamation action.

The motion judge had found the agreement was conditional on further elaboration of the words 'disparage' and 'scientific' based on the respondents' subjective intent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on subjective intent rather than an objective reading of the written offer.

Viewed objectively, the written offer contained all essential terms and was not conditional.

The court declared the settlement agreement enforceable.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding the respondent's compliance with a due diligence undertaking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the motion judge erred by failing to apply an objective test, applying an objective standard would lead to the same conclusion: the respondent took sufficient steps to comply with its contractual obligation and exercise its discretion reasonably.

Appeal from an application judgment reducing the voting rights attached to 18 commercial condominium basement units from 18 votes to three.

The court held that condominiums are creatures of statute and that the voting scheme mandated by the Condominium Act could not be altered by unilateral undertakings, by-laws inconsistent with the declaration, settlement arrangements, or equitable doctrines absent compliance with the statutory amendment process.

The court further held that proprietary estoppel was unavailable because there was no inducement, reliance, or detriment as between the relevant parties, and any prior representation was not made to the respondent owner nor binding on successors in title.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment below was set aside, and the application was dismissed with costs to the appellant here and below.