Brian DeLorenzi

The applicant, a bare trustee, sought an order for the partition and sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The respondent, the beneficial owner, opposed the sale, arguing that the applicant had no independent power to compel sale under their bare trust agreement and that a sale would be unfair given her ongoing efforts to resolve matrimonial issues and retain the home.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant, as a bare trustee, lacked the authority to compel partition or sale, and even if she had such a right, it would be oppressive to order a sale under the circumstances.

The plaintiff, Priddle-Luck Professional Corporation, brought a motion for an interim interim interlocutory injunction seeking mandatory orders for the return of client information and disclosure of communications, and prohibitory injunctions against using goodwill/client lists and soliciting clients.

The motion arose from the sale of an accounting practice and subsequent competition.

The court applied the three-part test from RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience) and noted the exceptional nature of mandatory and interlocutory injunctions.

The court found that the test had not been met at this preliminary stage due to significant divergence in evidence requiring further exploration.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed, and costs were reserved.

A third party insurer brought a motion seeking dismissal of a crossclaim and third party claim and requesting costs incurred in defending those claims.

The claims had been initiated after the third party insurer initially denied coverage for a motor vehicle accident based on an alleged breach of statutory conditions.

After the third party insurer clarified its position that coverage was denied only because the driver lacked consent, the claims were discontinued by agreement.

The court held that the claims were not frivolous or vexatious when commenced because they were prompted by the insurer’s earlier denial of coverage.

The motion for costs by the third party insurer was dismissed, and the opposing insurer was awarded costs of the motion.