Brian Mark Studniberg

The plaintiffs sought to enforce an "Outline of Terms of Settlement" reached during mediation, arguing it constituted a binding agreement.

The defendants contended that the Outline was not intended to be enforceable and lacked essential terms.

The court found that the Outline did not objectively reflect a mutual intention to create a binding agreement and that numerous material issues, including debt reallocation, minority shareholder rights, and tax implications of asset transfers, remained unresolved.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing that it cannot create a contract for parties where essential terms are missing.

The applicants, current trustees of a trust, brought an urgent application concerning a real estate transaction closing that day, seeking relief related to the respondent's alleged former trustee status and his entitlement to ensure proper application of trust funds.

The respondent brought a counter-application.

The court denied the urgent relief sought by the applicants, finding their urgency self-induced and their approach tactical.

The judge emphasized that the complex issues deserved a fair airing on proper notice and that the applicants had the ability to resolve the matter to preserve the sale.

The court also acknowledged the respondent's legitimate concerns about potential personal liability as a former trustee and his right to due diligence.

The applicant, an Ontario corporation, sought declarations that certain provisions of British Columbia's Provincial Sales Tax Act were unconstitutional and did not have legal force in Ontario.

The respondent British Columbia Crown brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The court granted the motion, finding that interprovincial Crown immunity applied and that the British Columbia Crown could only be sued in the courts of British Columbia pursuant to the British Columbia Crown Proceeding Act.

A charitable foundation appealed a decision of the Minister of Revenue denying a refund of retail sales tax paid on prepared food products served at fundraising events where attendees paid a single ticket price.

The dispute concerned whether food provided at such events was supplied “without specific charge” under s. 12 of Regulation 1012 made under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The court applied modern principles of statutory interpretation and concluded that the phrase requires a distinct charge for the food itself, not merely that food costs be embedded within a bundled event price.

Because the ticket price for the events did not itemize or separately allocate a charge for the prepared food products, the food was provided “without specific charge.” The foundation was therefore entitled to the exemption and the requested refund.