Arnold B. Schwisberg

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to remove the plaintiff's litigation guardian, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, while the defendants argued for a lower partial indemnity amount.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $7,826.83 inclusive of GST and disbursements, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the history and circumstances of the litigation.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to strike out allegations of the tort of intimidation from its statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the tort of intimidation requires pleading not only a threat and intent to injure, but also that an act was taken or forgone as a result of the threat, causing damages.

As the appellant only pleaded a threat and intent to injure, the claim was properly struck without leave to amend.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claims for breach of contract regarding the renovation of 118 bathrooms and for slander.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that no contract existed and that the appellant failed to prove slander.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a non-competition covenant.

The appellant argued the covenant was too broad in subject matter, duration, and geographic reach, and contrary to public policy.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the law and reasonably concluded the covenant was enforceable between knowledgeable commercial parties of equal bargaining power.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the covenant's geographic reach and duration excessive and vague.

The appellant and respondent entered into a consensual arbitration over a commercial dispute arising from a share purchase agreement containing an earn-out provision.

The arbitrator found in the respondent's favour.

The appellant brought a judicial review application to the Divisional Court, which dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court erred in principle by failing to determine the standard of review before deciding the application.

However, applying either a reasonableness or patent unreasonableness standard, the Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the arbitrator's award, concluding that the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash an arbitration award that ordered it to pay the respondent $5 million pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Arbitration Act and the parties' agreement, which explicitly prohibited appeals, barred the application.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to pursue any potential statutory appeal rights within the prescribed time limits.

On the merits, the court found the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was not patently unreasonable and the process was procedurally fair.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that he exercised undue influence over his mother in the procurement of instruments transferring property to his son.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding of physical and moral control amounting to undue influence was supported by the evidence and not undermined by the opinion of a solicitor who was not privy to all family interactions.

Abella J.A. dissented, finding that any presumption of undue influence was rebutted by the mother's evidence and the cogent evidence of her solicitor.