Alex Minkin

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment claiming he was terminated without cause with 72 weeks remaining on a fixed-term employment contract.

He sought liquidated damages for the balance of the term, while leaving alternative claims regarding the validity of the termination clause for trial if unsuccessful.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate in these circumstances.

Applying the principles from Butera and Hryniak, the court held that bifurcating the issues risked inconsistent findings at trial and would not serve the goals of proportionality, timeliness, and affordability.

The plaintiff and defendants, partners in an informal real estate joint venture, brought cross-motions concerning Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) on three properties.

The plaintiff sought discharge of a CPL on one property and payment of funds, while the defendants sought discharge of a CPL on another and leave to issue a CPL on a third.

The court applied the Interrent test for CPLs, finding triable issues for all claims due to the parties' poor record-keeping.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed, and the defendants were granted leave to issue a CPL on one property, preserving the status quo pending trial.

The moving corporate defendant sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a US$1 million investment loan advanced through a convertible debenture for a solar energy project.

The plaintiff alleged the individual defendant acted as agent for the corporate defendant and that the corporation was liable for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and conversion.

The court held that the evidentiary record was incomplete, particularly due to the absence of evidence from key individuals alleged to have negotiated the transaction.

Given unresolved issues concerning agency, corporate identification, and the ultimate destination of the funds, the court concluded that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.

Summary judgment was therefore refused.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to strike portions of the plaintiff’s statement of claim that referenced settlement discussions and an offer made during negotiations concerning the early termination of a commercial lease.

The court considered whether the impugned paragraphs disclosed privileged settlement communications.

It held that references to settlement offers or negotiations are generally improper in pleadings because such communications are privileged and inadmissible.

While statements merely describing the landlord’s intention to demolish the building were permissible, references to an offer contained in counsel’s letter and the tenant’s rejection of that offer constituted settlement communications.

The court ordered the offending portions struck while leaving the remainder of the pleading intact.