Bradley Vermeersch

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, arguing the claims lacked particularity, disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and that the oppression claims should have been brought as a derivative action.

The dispute involved a family-owned real estate business.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the pleadings provided sufficient particulars and that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's oppression claims would fail, particularly given the context of a closely-held family corporation where personal and derivative claims may overlap.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend certain paragraphs to provide additional facts.

The applicant landlord sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a rent re-set clause in a 99-year commercial ground lease.

The clause required the property to be valued 'as if it were unimproved'.

The landlord argued this meant the land should be valued as if it were unencumbered and available for freehold condominium development.

The respondent tenant argued the valuation must account for legal restrictions preventing such development.

The court held that the landlord was issue estopped from re-litigating the interpretation decided in a 1990 arbitration.

Alternatively, the court found that the correct interpretation of the lease required the valuation to account for the legal encumbrances restricting the tenant's ability to develop the property.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim to rectify a promissory note and the dissolution of an interim injunction, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants relied on contractual indemnity provisions in the promissory note and guarantee to claim full indemnity costs.

The court held that the plain language of the contracts entitled the main defendants to full indemnity costs.

The costs claimed were found to be reasonable under Rule 57.01, with a minor deduction for a defendant lawyer's time spent attending trial as a spectator.

A separate defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought to rectify a promissory note, arguing that the fixed due date of December 31, 2015, did not reflect the true intent of the parties and was a mistake.

Alternatively, they argued there was a subsequent agreement to defer payment until a new financing deal was completed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the written terms of the note accurately reflected the parties' agreement and that no subsequent agreement to defer enforcement had been reached.

The interim injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the note was dissolved.