Bois Wilson

The court considered whether Parkland Corporation was entitled to a permanent injunction and other relief against 2700455 Ontario Inc. for breach of an exclusive fuel supply agreement.

The court found that 270 breached the agreement by failing to provide a security deposit and by selling non-Parkland fuel.

The court rejected arguments of frustration and fundamental breach, held the exclusive supply clause enforceable, and granted a permanent injunction prohibiting 270 from selling non-Parkland fuel.

Damages were left for trial, and costs were awarded to Parkland.

The defendants, a doctor and a medical centre, moved for summary judgment to dismiss a medical negligence action, arguing it was statute-barred and lacked expert evidence.

The plaintiffs sought a further adjournment, claiming COVID-19 travel restrictions prevented them from obtaining necessary evidence from Nigeria.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the plaintiffs' reasons vague and the sought evidence irrelevant to the limitation period or the Canadian standard of care.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the action, concluding there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and the absence of a qualified expert report.

Following a successful summary judgment motion enforcing a personal guarantee, the plaintiff sought costs of approximately $25,000, including legal fees, disbursements, and HST.

The defendant conceded entitlement to disbursements but argued that total costs should be limited to $15,000 inclusive.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court considered the relative simplicity of the matter and what costs the losing party could reasonably have anticipated.

The court fixed the plaintiff’s costs at the lower end of the anticipated range.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a personal guarantee executed by a defendant in respect of a small business loan to a corporation operating a pub.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was conditional upon finalizing a business arrangement with another participant and alternatively that the document was to be held in escrow.

The court held that the guarantee was expressly described as continuing, absolute, and unconditional and required any alteration or waiver to be in writing.

Applying the parol evidence rule and authorities from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court found that alleged oral conditions or collateral agreements could not vary the written terms of the guarantee.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the bank for the guaranteed amount plus interest.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief confirming that they retained a valid and subsisting mortgage after a loan secured by assignment of that mortgage had been sold to a third party.

The court found that the requested declaration would affect the rights of a mortgagor that was not a party to the proceeding, making such relief inappropriate.

The court also concluded that no viable cause of action existed between the plaintiffs and the remaining defendant.

The defendant’s counterclaim seeking repayment of the loan more than a decade after default was barred by the Limitations Act due to the long delay and absence of any demand.

Both the main action and the counterclaim were dismissed.