Avril A. Farlam

The appellant and her husband sold their farming business to their son and daughter-in-law.

The appellant sought rectification of the memorandum of agreement and the vendor take-back mortgage, arguing that the purchase price for the real property was incorrectly recorded due to a drafting error.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, holding that the appellant failed to meet the standard of 'convincing proof' and that the parties lacked a common intention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the ordinary civil standard of proof applies to rectification claims and that the trial judge erred by relying on the respondent's subjective belief rather than an objective assessment of the parties' common intention based on the totality of the evidence.

The appellant, a roofing contractor, appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay over $900,000 to the respondent condominium corporation in a third-party action.

The main action involved a unit owner who successfully sued the condominium corporation for continuous roof leaks.

The Court of Appeal found that while the contractor was liable for breach of contract, it was not liable for negligent misstatement because the condominium corporation had unreasonably ignored expert reports in favour of the contractor's cheaper solution.

The Court of Appeal reassessed damages, finding the condominium corporation primarily responsible for the delay in fixing the roof, and reduced the damages awarded against the contractor to $50,913.97.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding an aborted real estate transaction where the purchaser was identified as a corporation 'In Trust'.

The appellants had pleaded that the corporation was acting as a trustee for a disclosed beneficiary, but later sought to amend their pleadings at the end of the trial to hold the trustee liable.

The trial judge denied the motion to amend and held only the corporate beneficiary liable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trustee status was not a live issue at trial due to the appellants' own pleadings, and awarded costs to the respondents.

The appellant condominium developer appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for failing to disclose sufficient information regarding an HVAC equipment lease in a disclosure statement provided to prospective purchasers.

The trial judge held that the failure to include the lease term, total cost, interest rate, and purchase option price violated s. 52(5) of the Condominium Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the disclosure statement accurately disclosed the existence and first-year cost of the lease, which was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements.

The failure to provide further details was not a material omission, and the condominium corporations did not suffer a loss in reliance on the statement.

The City of Windsor appealed a decision finding it had no interest in land referable to certain parking spaces.

On appeal, the City attempted to argue for the first time that it had statutory rights of enforcement under s. 41.1(10) of the Planning Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the new argument could not be raised due to appellate practice and an insufficient factual record.

The court found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the City had no interest in the land.

The appellants brought a motion to review an order requiring them to post security for costs.

They argued the motion judge misapprehended evidence regarding the corporate appellant's indebtedness and asset valuation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's reliance on the public record and financial statements over unconfirmed assertions and a late-produced tax bill.

The appellants were ordered to post security for costs within thirty days.

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.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claim for partition and sale and granting other relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the partition and sale claim, finding that the joint venture agreement provided a proper basis for denying this relief.

However, the Court found material facts in dispute regarding mortgage disclosure and directed those issues to proceed to trial.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant employer appealed a judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal and slander.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's factual findings, including that the dismissal allegations were not sincere and were motivated by a desire to remove long-serving employees, were open on the evidence and answered the employer's arguments.

The court also upheld the defamation finding, concluding that any qualified privilege was defeated by the equivalent of a finding of malice.

The respondent's cross-appeal for increased slander damages, punitive and aggravated damages, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a related employer and sale of business declaration against multiple responding corporate entities.

Several responding parties failed to attend the hearing, and the remaining active responding parties did not oppose the related employer declaration.

The Board applied its Rules of Procedure regarding failure to attend, accepted the applicant's submissions, and declared that five of the responding entities constitute a single employer bound by the applicable provincial collective agreement.

The hearing on the remaining issues was scheduled to continue at a later date.