Anita Landry

The police defendants brought two motions: one to exclude the public from the court hearing pursuant to s. 135(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, and another to seal the file pursuant to s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Both motions were dismissed.

The court noted that the defendants could seek public exclusion on a hearing-by-hearing basis to address concerns over the release of personal and identifying information of complainants and minor witnesses.

Material for a future summary judgment motion (Rule 20) may be sealed upon filing, subject to the motion judge's discretion.

Costs were reserved.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding they had entered into a settlement agreement to pay the respondent for a load of carrots.

The appellants argued there was no consensus ad idem on the monthly payment rate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that an implied agreement had been reached based on the parties' post-negotiation conduct.

On cross-appeal, the Court found the motion judge erred by allowing the appellants' counterclaim to proceed, holding that the settlement of the main action implied an obligation to release the counterclaim.

The appellant creditor appealed the dismissal of its application for a bankruptcy order against the respondent debtor.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in her assessment of whether the debtor had ceased to meet his liabilities generally and whether special circumstances existed for a single-creditor bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge applied the correct standard of proof and her factual findings were reasonably supported by the evidence.

Following a successful summary judgment motion concerning a debt dispute and alleged settlement, the plaintiff sought substantial costs for the motion and the broader action.

The court held that the defendants had unnecessarily complicated what was a relatively straightforward settlement issue through procedural steps and a counterclaim.

However, the court emphasized proportionality and the principle that the losing party should not reasonably expect to pay for two senior counsel on a relatively simple motion.

Applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants for the Province of Ontario, the court reduced the claimed costs and fixed partial indemnity costs for the motion.

The court deferred determination of the remaining action costs pending resolution of issues relating to the counterclaim.

The appellant municipality appealed an application judge's interpretation of a development agreement regarding the costs of operating a pumping station.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the costs of operation, as distinct from maintenance and repair, are to be borne by the municipality and not the developer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to enforce an alleged settlement agreement arising from a dispute over unpaid invoices for agricultural produce.

The defendants argued that no binding settlement existed because the parties never reached agreement on a fundamental term, namely the schedule of repayment.

The court held that the parties had reached a binding settlement on the principal compromise amount through email exchanges and subsequent conduct, including the issuance and negotiation of cheques consistent with the proposed settlement.

Silence in response to a counter‑proposal combined with partial performance supported an inference that the repayment terms were accepted.

Summary judgment was granted enforcing the settlement against certain corporate defendants but not against the individual defendants.

The parties were involved in matrimonial litigation.

The wife, as registered owner, sold a commercial property and sought a writ of possession.

The husband opposed, producing a newly 'found' trust agreement claiming beneficial ownership.

The motion judge granted the writ, relying in part on an unsworn handwriting expert report refuting the wife's signature.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in relying on the unsworn report but upheld the writ of possession, noting the husband's prior financial statements acknowledging the wife's ownership and the need to preserve the favourable sale.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant recruitment agency sued the respondent trucking companies for breach of contract after its services were terminated.

The trial judge found only the subsidiary company liable for failing to provide six months' notice, but that company subsequently went bankrupt.

On appeal, the appellant argued the parent companies were liable for inducing breach of contract and under the common employer doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the inducing breach claim was not pleaded at trial and lacked the requisite intent, and upholding the trial judge's finding that the contract was solely with the subsidiary.

The respondents' cross-appeal regarding a Sanderson costs order was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence that an Easement and Lake Water Supply Agreement had been conveyed to the appellant through an Assignment and Assumption of Contracts Agreement and a vesting order.

The motion judge erred in dismissing the action on the basis that the agreement had not been transferred.

The appeal was allowed, the order set aside, and partial summary judgment granted declaring the agreement was conveyed to the appellant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status, specifically regarding a policy requiring part-time employees to be available for midnight shifts.

The respondent franchisor, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited, requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing it only provided operational support to the franchisee and did not control day-to-day operations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the franchisee had attached the franchisor's employment policies to its response, and the franchisor's liability could not be determined without evidence and argument at a hearing.

The plaintiff brought a refusals and undertakings motion arising from the cross-examinations of two deponents on the plaintiff's pending partial summary judgment motion for rent arrears under a commercial lease.

The plaintiff sought to strike the affidavits or compel answers and document production regarding corporate liability and the removal of fixtures.

The court applied the principles from Ontario v. Rothmans Inc. regarding the scope of cross-examination on an affidavit.

The court ordered the deponents to reattend to answer certain relevant questions and produce specific documents, but declined to compel answers to irrelevant questions or strike the affidavits.

The appellant university appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the transferability of its engineering program credits.

The trial judge found that the university's promotional materials misleadingly suggested that transferring to another university after two years would be routine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings that the representations were misleading, negligently made, and reasonably relied upon by the respondent.

The court also upheld the finding that the respondent acted reasonably to mitigate his damages.

Leave to appeal costs was granted on consent to delete specific paragraphs from the trial judgment.

Following an appeal where the appellant achieved mixed success by reducing the respondent's damages award, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The Court of Appeal reduced the trial judge's costs award from $146,108.35 to $110,000, finding that the reduced judgment no longer exceeded the respondent's settlement offer and that pre-litigation conduct did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded no costs for the appeal, offsetting the respondent's success on liability against the appellant's success on damages and motion costs.

The respondent, a cable installer, had an employment offer from a contractor withdrawn after the appellant, a large cable provider, informed the contractor it would not allow the respondent to work on its projects.

The trial judge found the appellant liable for intentional interference with economic relations and awarded damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that while the tort of intentional interference with economic relations was not made out because the appellant's breach of its own internal policy was not an 'unlawful act', the appellant was liable for the tort of inducing breach of contract.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the damages for past loss of income by the amount the respondent actually earned during that period.

The cross-appeal for punitive damages was dismissed.

The appellant contractor sued the respondent bank for misrepresentation after the bank failed to advance a $150,000 loan to a mall owner to pay for renovations.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the bank had informed the contractor that the loan was conditional on a guarantor's signature.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The bank had represented that the loan was a sure thing and that the signature was a mere formality, knowing this was untrue and that the contractor would rely on it.

Judgment was entered for the contractor for the undisputed contract amount plus costs.