Andrew Finkelstein

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract after an aborted real estate transaction.

The parties subsequently negotiated a revised agreement of purchase and sale, which eventually closed.

The plaintiffs later amended their claim, arguing the subsequent sale was merely in mitigation of damages and sought the difference in purchase price.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing the subsequent sale was part of a settlement agreement that resolved the litigation.

The court agreed with the defendant, finding that the objective interpretation of the parties' communications and conduct demonstrated an intention to settle the litigation by reviving the transaction, exchanging mutual releases, and dismissing the claims without costs.

The action and counterclaim were dismissed.

The applicants, daughters of the respondent, sought a declaration that their father's transfer of his interest in a $4.3 million mortgage to a family trust was a valid gift.

The father argued he lacked donative intent, believing he controlled and was a beneficiary of the trust, and alternatively claimed his daughters unduly influenced him.

The court found the father had donative intent, understanding the estate freeze and trust terms after receiving independent legal and accounting advice.

The court also found no undue influence, as the father acted freely and the daughters were not in a position to dominate his will.

The transfer was upheld as a valid gift.

The applicants purchased a Finnish mining company from the respondents under a share purchase agreement containing tax indemnities.

Post-closing, the Finnish tax authority reassessed the company's pre-closing tax years, disallowing deductions and effectively eliminating tax loss carry forwards that the applicants had intended to use in post-closing years.

The applicants sought indemnification for the reassessed taxes and the resulting increased tax burden in post-closing years.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the reassessment breached the respondents' unqualified warranty that there were no grounds for reassessment.

The court further held that the increased taxes in post-closing years were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the reassessment and fell within the scope of the indemnities.

The respondents were ordered to pay the amounts already collected by the tax authority, with the remainder to be determined after the conclusion of Finnish tax appeals.

The applicant brought a motion to appoint replacement estate trustees for the estate of her late husband, following the resignation of the previous trustees amidst a highly fractious family dispute.

The applicant sought the appointment of three family members, while the responding parties sought the appointment of a neutral third party, either Scotiatrust or a senior lawyer.

The court found that the extreme animosity between the two family camps necessitated a neutral institutional trustee to prevent further litigation and ensure the estate's administration.

Scotiatrust was appointed as the Estate Trustee During Litigation.

The applicant brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's certificate of assessment of her former solicitors' accounts.

The applicant had retained the solicitors for a potential oppression claim related to a family law proceeding.

The Assessment Officer reduced the accounts slightly but largely upheld them, finding the matter was of above-average complexity and the fees were reasonable.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors in principle in the Assessment Officer's application of the relevant factors or factual findings.

The certificate of assessment was confirmed.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 21.01(b) to strike the counterclaim of the defendants, which alleged breach of contract, oppression, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from a family business dispute.

The court struck the negligent misrepresentation claim and all claims by the corporate defendant, finding they lacked the necessary factual pleadings, but granted leave to amend.

The court declined to strike the individual defendant's claims for breach of contract, oppression, and unjust enrichment, finding they disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The parties contacted the court following the release of the Reasons for Judgment to advise that the consent damages calculation of $2,214,895.00 inadvertently omitted a one-time payment of $562,000.00.

The court issued an addendum amending the damages awarded to the plaintiffs to $2,776,895.00.

The deceased, Albert Latner, commenced two actions against his son Joshua and Joshua's company.

The first action sought payments owed under a written support agreement.

The second action sought the return of a $13 million payment, claiming it was held on a resulting trust.

The estate continued the actions after Albert's death.

The court allowed the first action, finding that an alleged oral waiver of the support payments violated the parol evidence rule and the agreement's entire agreement clause.

The court dismissed the second action, finding that the defendants successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust by proving the $13 million was intended as a gift to equalize financial treatment among the children.

ERM brought motions to consolidate four related actions arising from environmental contamination and a remediation agreement, and to strike the property owners' claims for contribution, indemnity, and nuisance.

The court dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding that the actions should be tried together to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to separate counsel and to prevent circumvention of limitation periods.

The court also dismissed the motions to strike, holding that the claims for contribution and indemnity were not premature given ongoing Ministry of the Environment involvement, and that it was not plain and obvious the nuisance claims would fail.