Arleen Vanessa Huggins

The Appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to enforce a settlement in a failed real estate transaction.

The Appellants argued the motion judge erred by refusing to exercise discretion not to enforce the settlement, claiming new expert evidence changed the case and their new counsel was unaware of the outstanding offer.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding he properly exercised his discretion by considering all relevant factors and concluding it was not a "rare case" warranting non-enforcement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce acceptance of a Rule 49 offer to settle made by the defendants in litigation arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The defendants argued the offer was not a Rule 49 offer, lacked an essential term, and that it would be unjust to enforce it due to new expert evidence and a change in counsel.

The court found that the offer complied with Rule 49, was capable of acceptance, and the presumption that Rule 49 applied was not rebutted.

The court also determined that it was not one of those rare cases where it would be unjust to enforce the settlement, emphasizing that changes in case strength or counsel's unawareness do not typically justify non-enforcement.

The motion was granted, and judgment was issued in favour of the plaintiffs.

The appellants, Smiles First Corporation and Union Health and Dental Centre Inc., appealed the dismissal of their application under section 21 of the Commercial Tenancies Act and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The core dispute involved a head lease assignment dated October 31, 2016, from the intermediate tenant to Smiles First, and the effect of the intermediate tenant's subsequent abandonment of the head lease on Smiles First's sublease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the head lease assignment was ineffective due to lack of landlord consent, Smiles First remained entitled to possession of the premises as a subtenant under the sublease, which survived the head lease surrender.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt against the defendant for non-compliance with a Master's order regarding discovery refusals and production of documents, which had been upheld on appeal.

While the court declined to hear the contempt aspect due to short notice, it addressed the merits of the outstanding refusal (Refusal #3) and extended the time for the continued examination of the defendant's representative.

The court found the defendant's claim of no documentation for a previously admitted analysis to be incredible and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the plaintiff due to the defendant's persistent delays and litigation tactics.

The plaintiff moved to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned.

The dismissal occurred after a notice of intent to defend was served but not filed, and the plaintiff had not received notice from the court that the action would be dismissed.

Applying the principles governing restoration of dismissed actions, the court found the delay negligible and the motion brought promptly, with no demonstrated prejudice to the defendants.

The court reinstated the action but imposed terms validating service on one defendant and providing time for that defendant to bring a motion to strike or to defend.

Issues raised about duplicative proceedings and cause of action estoppel were left to be determined on a future motion.