Amrita Mann

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding them liable for breach of a sponsorship agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the existence of the contract and the refusal to draw an adverse inference for failing to call a witness.

However, the court allowed the individual appellant's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in piercing the corporate veil to hold him personally liable, as there was no evidence the corporation was used for an improper purpose or that he agreed to personal liability.

The Defendants sought leave to appeal a series of interim decisions by Snowie J., which included granting injunctions against defamation and harassment, a publication ban, and substantial costs awards, in two separate actions brought by S.R. and V.B. against the Defendants.

The court granted leave to appeal on all issues, finding conflicting legal principles regarding defamation injunctions, uncertainty in the evolving torts of harassment and intrusion upon seclusion, and procedural irregularities and open court principle concerns regarding the publication ban.

The costs award was also subject to appeal as it flowed from the underlying decisions.

A proposed purchaser under an agreement of purchase and sale sought leave to intervene in a mortgage enforcement proceeding where the defendants had brought a motion to stay a power of sale and sought relief from forfeiture.

The court considered Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing intervention by added parties.

The proposed intervenor demonstrated a real interest in the litigation because the outcome could affect his contractual right to complete the purchase of the property and his submissions would assist the court in assessing issues including fair market value.

The court found that at least one of the disjunctive criteria under Rule 13.01(1) was met and that intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

Leave to intervene as an added party on the defendants’ motion was granted.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their main action and striking their defence to a counterclaim for delay and failure to comply with undertakings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision based on the record before him.

However, the appellants brought a motion to file fresh evidence consisting of the previously unproduced financial documents.

Although the fresh evidence did not meet the due diligence requirement, the Court admitted it because it was highly relevant to the ongoing defamation counterclaim.

The appeal was allowed, the pleadings were restored, and the action was returned to the trial list, with costs awarded to the respondent due to the appellants' delay.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices for aluminum products supplied to the defendant.

The defendant did not dispute the debt but claimed a right of set-off based on an alleged joint venture agreement with the plaintiff regarding a municipal contract.

The court found that the conflicting evidence regarding the set-off agreement constituted a genuine issue for trial that could not be resolved on the affidavit evidence.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

This costs decision followed a successful motion by the plaintiff for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation in relation to real property before an imminent closing.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for full or substantial indemnity costs, holding the opposition was legitimate and that the appropriate approach was fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

Partial indemnity costs of $5,000 all inclusive were fixed for the CPL motion.

No costs were awarded to either side for a later motion to vary or amend that settled when $60,000 was paid into court and the caution was removed.

The moving parties (respondents in the main application) brought a motion to set aside two previous court orders.

The first order dissolved a real estate partnership and required the moving parties to pay compensation, which they argued was obtained without disclosing that they had appealed an earlier order striking their pleadings.

The second order dismissed their motion for leave to appeal after they failed to attend the hearing.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside, finding that the non-disclosure was not material as the pleadings had been struck for non-compliance with court orders, and the failure to attend the leave motion was not due to inadvertence.

Members of a religious corporation brought motions relating to governance disputes within the corporation.

The court considered applications to intervene, the validity of a consent order appointing corporate directors following a mediation process before another judge, alleged breaches of that order, and related procedural matters.

The respondents argued that the consent order appointing directors should be set aside on grounds including lack of a condition precedent and alleged illegality under the Corporations Act.

The court rejected those arguments, holding that the consent order was valid and final, having been agreed to by all parties through counsel and approved through the agreed process.

Injunctive relief was granted restraining certain respondents from interfering with the corporation’s governance and requiring the turnover of corporate property and documents.