Andrew M. Beney

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff, Kathy Olson, sued the defendants for breach of contract and misrepresentation after renovations to her cottage proved deficient.

The court found that Olson had sufficient knowledge of the deficiencies and the basis for a claim by summer 2019, more than two years before she commenced her action in July 2022.

The court held that the limitation period had expired, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant, Heather Ann Hugginson, sought a declaration that a $400,000 inter vivos gift allegedly given by the deceased, Glenn Poole, to the respondent, Sandra Hugginson, was invalid and that the funds should be returned to the estate.

The court found that Sandra failed to prove Glenn’s specific intent to make the gift or that he delivered the gift before his death.

The court also rejected the argument that the gift was perfected when Sandra became estate trustee, finding the rule in Strong v. Bird did not apply.

The application was granted and Sandra was ordered to return the $400,000 to the estate.

The appellant, Ekum-Sekum Incorporated (Brantco Construction), appealed a trial judge's finding that equitable set-off was available to the respondents, Lanca Contracting Limited et al., arguing that the respondents did not come to court with clean hands.

The Court of Appeal found that the two construction contracts were related, making equitable set-off available.

The trial judge had properly exercised discretion, recognizing both parties' contract breaches but not finding unclean hands.

The appellate court also upheld the trial judge's finding that a claimed breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act was not proven, as funds were adequately accounted for.

The appeal was dismissed, as the appellant failed to establish a palpable and overriding error of fact or an extricable error of law.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on his claim for payment under a Promissory Note and for dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation.

The dispute arose from the sale of a landscaping business, where the defendants stopped making payments on the Promissory Note after a third party failed to pay on a contract.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, holding that the Share Purchase Agreement did not make payment of the Promissory Note contingent on the third-party contract.

The court also dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence to support the elements of negligent misrepresentation.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.