Ben Peel

The plaintiffs, two numbered companies acting as financing vehicles for tax shelter schemes, sued the defendant investor for repayment of $6.29 million in loans.

The defendant argued that the loans were satisfied by preferred shares held in trust and that claims for earlier loans were statute-barred.

The court found that the claims for the earlier loans were out of time as the limitation period commenced when the loans matured or were demanded by the tax shelter's operating company acting as the plaintiffs' agent.

Furthermore, the court held that the preferred shares were intended to repay the loans.

The action and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed.

The defendant was successful on a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations as an abuse of process.

The defendant sought costs of $21,804.92 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $17,750 on a partial indemnity basis, noting that the plaintiff's late abandonment of several causes of action unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding, but substantial indemnity costs were not warranted.

The applicant commercial tenant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from evicting it pending the hearing of its application.

The parties had been unable to agree on the rent for a five-year renewal period.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the renewal rate, irreparable harm if the tenant was evicted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The injunction was granted, with the tenant ordered to pay an interim monthly rent.

The plaintiff, Crown Crest Financial Corp., sued the defendant, a licensed paralegal, alleging he unlawfully obtained confidential business records and misused the information to recruit 14 claimants to sue Crown Crest in Small Claims Court.

The plaintiff advanced claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claims under Rule 21.01.

The court granted the motion, finding that the claims were not legally viable on public policy grounds, as they would interfere with the loyalty relationship between a litigant and their legal representative.

The court also found the claims were an abuse of process because they relied on privileged communications.

The claims were struck, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend to plead privacy torts.