Andrea M. Mannell

The plaintiff, a slip priority note holder, sued the defendant sailing club for breach of contract after the club unilaterally changed its summer dockage rates, eliminating a long-standing 20% rate differential for slip priority holders.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no such agreement existed or was breached.

The court found a valid contract based on objective intent and conduct, including 40 years of consistent application of the 20% differential.

The court determined the club breached this agreement by unilaterally altering its terms and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages and specific performance of the original rate differential.

The defendant moved for the release of proceeds held in trust from the sale of her home.

The plaintiffs had previously obtained a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on an ex parte motion, claiming an interest in the property based on an alleged agreement of purchase and sale.

The property was subsequently sold by a mortgage lender after the defendant defaulted, and the net proceeds were held in trust.

The court found that the CPL should have been discharged due to the plaintiffs' failure to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion and because equitable factors favoured discharge.

The court also declined to order the funds held as security under Rule 45.02, noting the plaintiffs' claim was ultimately for damages.

The motion was granted and the funds were ordered released to the defendant.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an application where the applicants sought a declaration of adverse possession over disputed lands.

The court previously granted the applicants ownership of a portion of the lands (Common Grounds) but not the entirety.

The respondent, deemed the successful party for costs, sought substantial indemnity costs for both the current and a prior related application.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs, finding that the respondent's offers to settle did not meet the requirements of Rule 49.10 and that the applicants' conduct did not warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The parties were ordered to equally share the costs of implementing the judgment.

The applicants sought ownership by adverse possession of a triangular parcel of land ("Disputed Lands") on their property's eastern border.

The respondent, the registered owner of the adjoining property, conceded a portion of these lands ("Common Grounds") but disputed the remainder.

The court found that the applicants established adverse possession of the "Common Grounds" due to their continuous, open, and exclusive use, and the mutual mistake regarding ownership.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to establish adverse possession of the balance of the "Disputed Lands." The judgment declared the applicants as lawful owners of the "Common Grounds" and ordered the necessary land registry amendments.

This is a motion to review the decision of Justice M.L. Benotto dismissing a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal panel found that Benotto J.A. applied the correct test and saw no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The applicants sought a declaration that "Reservation Agreements" for condominium units were binding contracts and that the respondent engaged in bad faith bargaining by proposing inconsistent terms in subsequent draft agreements of purchase and sale.

The court found that the Reservation Agreements were not binding contracts because they lacked essential terms, specifically the precise identification and location of the condominium units, and indicated that further terms (like down payment) needed to be agreed upon.

The court also noted that the Planning Act prohibited offering land for sale prior to plan approval at the time the agreements were made.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.