A. McCoomb

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a construction lien action, seeking a determination that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied to their residential cost-plus construction contract and that the plaintiff breached the CPA by exceeding budget estimates by more than 10 percent.

The court granted the motion in part, declaring that the CPA applies to the contract and that it is a 'consumer agreement'.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the specific budget line items constituted 'estimates' under the CPA and whether the parties had agreed to amend those estimates during the project.

The applicant in a family law proceeding brought a motion to amend her pleadings to add her spouse's corporation as a third party, seeking repayment of alleged demand loans.

The corporation opposed the motion, arguing that the limitation period had expired because the original family law application constituted a demand for payment.

The court allowed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the original application, which named only the spouse, constituted a clear and unequivocal demand to the corporation itself.

The applicant was permitted to amend her reply to add the corporation as a party.

The applicant corporation sought court approval of a plan of arrangement under s. 182 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act involving the acquisition of its shares by another corporation.

Applying the framework in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, the court considered whether statutory procedures were followed, whether the application was brought in good faith, and whether the arrangement was fair and reasonable.

The court concluded that the arrangement had a valid business purpose, had been approved overwhelmingly by shareholders, and provided a significant premium to shareholders.

The court declined to rely on a fairness opinion contained in the management proxy circular because it constituted opinion evidence that failed to meet the admissibility requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure, as it did not disclose the analytical basis for the opinion.

The arrangement was nevertheless approved on the basis of other admissible evidence.