Arnie Herschorn

In a real estate deposit dispute, the sellers treated the buyers' letter about difficulties selling their own home as terminating the agreement of purchase and sale.

The court held that repudiation requires a clear, absolute, and unequivocal renunciation of contractual obligations.

The buyers' statements that they were evaluating options and trying to minimize issues did not amount to repudiation.

Judgment was granted in favour of the defendants, and the deposit with accrued interest was ordered returned to them.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging solicitor negligence arising from a share purchase transaction involving a property previously used as a gas station.

The solicitor defendants admitted a breach of duty for failing to disclose the property's prior use but sought summary dismissal on the basis that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

The court held that reasonable discoverability arose when a prospective purchaser abandoned a resale transaction due to contamination concerns, triggering the two‑year limitation period.

Because the action was commenced after the limitation period expired, the claim against those defendants was dismissed.

Claims against other lawyer defendants raised genuine issues of fact regarding the scope of retainer and limitation warnings and were permitted to proceed to trial.

Following a lengthy commercial dispute involving allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, misuse of confidential information, wrongful dismissal, and fraudulent conveyances, the court determined the allocation and scale of costs arising from two trials and related proceedings.

The litigation involved numerous parties and mixed results, with certain defendants fully successful and others partially liable.

The court concluded that the complexity of the litigation and the magnitude of the claimed costs warranted referral of most quantification issues to an assessment officer under Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded in several instances, including where unproven allegations of fraud or serious misconduct had been advanced, while partial indemnity costs applied to others depending on conduct and settlement offers.

The court also considered the appropriateness of Bullock and Sanderson orders in allocating responsibility among defendants.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The motion judge had found that the law firm had a current client relationship with one of the responding parties, a corporate affiliate of the moving parties' opponents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct legal principles regarding conflicts of interest and that her decision was highly fact-specific.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding the right of limited partners to vote on the election of a new general partner, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, awarding $17,000 to Chalmers, $8,000 to the liquidator, and $5,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements and GST, all payable by the appellant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The dispute centered on a numbered company incorporated by the appellant's late husband to hold a Florida condominium, with shares held by the appellant and the husband's children.

The motion judge found that the husband had loaned money to the corporation and had not forgiven the loan prior to or upon his death.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the loan remained an obligation of the corporation and that the failure of the estate to forgive the loan did not constitute oppressive conduct by the corporation or its directors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order allowing two limited partners to vote on the election of a new general partner for a limited partnership.

The appellant argued the limited partners were affiliated with and not dealing at arms length with the manager, and thus disqualified from voting under the partnership agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that there was no direct or indirect control establishing affiliation, and that the parties were dealing at arms length.

The landlord appealed a judgment granting the tenant relief from forfeiture and declaring a valid lease renewal.

The tenant had failed to provide written notice to renew the commercial lease but had engaged in oral and written negotiations with the landlord.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the landlord had waived the written notice requirement and that the landlord's subsequent correspondence did not clearly revoke the offer to renew, which the tenant validly accepted.