3 total
Appeal dismissed; trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding landlord wrongfully demolished leased premises.
The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent tenants $1,212,000 in damages for loss of business due to the wrongful demolition of the leased premises.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that demolition began while the lease was still valid, and raised issues of waiver and issue estoppel.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and did not amount to a palpable and overriding error.
The court also found no merit to the waiver and issue estoppel arguments, noting the parties had agreed on the quantum of damages prior to trial.
Summary judgment granted dismissing $1.46M claim for unpaid consulting services as unsupported by evidence and statute-barred.
The plaintiff brought an action claiming $1,465,000 for consulting and management services allegedly provided to the defendants in connection with various real estate projects in Canada and Croatia.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue for trial and that the claims were statute-barred.
The court granted the motion, finding no evidence of a syndicate or unpaid services, and that the plaintiff had been paid in full for the documented projects.
Furthermore, the court held that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the business relationship ended in 2003 and the action was not commenced until 2010.
Joinder allowed but conspiracy amendments against existing defendants refused as statute‑barred.
The plaintiff moved on the eve of trial for leave to amend its statement of claim and to add a new defendant alleged to have perpetrated a fraud involving a mortgage loan and bank draft transaction.
The proposed amendments also sought to introduce new allegations of conspiracy and fraud against existing defendants.
The court held that while the proposed new defendant was a proper and potentially necessary party to the litigation, the amendments asserting conspiracy against the existing defendants constituted new causes of action that were statute‑barred and inadequately pleaded.
The court permitted joinder of the new defendant with limited amendments alleging direct fraud but refused the broader conspiracy amendments against the existing defendants.
The motion was therefore granted only in part.
