Bruce Neil Baron

This decision on a reference determined the distribution of net proceeds from the sale of a jointly purchased property between two cousins, Seyed (plaintiff) and Peiman (defendant).

Seyed sought an equal split, while Peiman claimed a larger share based on alleged lost opportunity costs, small claims court action costs, property management fees, general contractor fees, and a payment differential.

The court found that Seyed was not contractually obligated to obtain a mortgage and denied Peiman's claims for lost opportunity costs, property management fees, and late payment interest.

It partially allowed general contractor fees and allowed small claims court costs to be shared.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Seyed had not underpaid his required contribution.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The defendant argued for proportionality and costs on the Small Claims Court scale, asserting the plaintiff did not achieve a more favourable result than their settlement offers.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding that the plaintiff's judgment was indeed more favourable than their settlement offers.

The court also dismissed the proportionality argument, emphasizing that a just result is paramount and that the defendant's "hardball litigation" tactics contributed to the costs.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the court concluded the appellant should have been successful at trial and awarded damages of $438,113 in addition to other relief.

The appellant had made a pre-trial Rule 49 offer to settle for $180,000.

The court determined the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

However, because a significant portion of the trial involved testing claims the appellant made which the trial judge found to be untrue, and many of those findings were undisturbed on appeal, the costs award was adjusted to reflect that the trial was not an unqualified success for the appellant.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment in the amount of $150,000 based on Minutes of Settlement, following the defendants' default on installment payments.

The court considered whether the consent to judgment constituted an unenforceable penalty clause or if relief from forfeiture was warranted for payments already made.

The court found the stipulated sum was not unconscionable given the negotiated nature of the settlement and the original claim amount.

Relief from forfeiture was denied as the bargain was not unconscionable and the defendants were dilatory in seeking relief.

The motion for judgment was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendant, Panolam Industries Ltd., brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Robert John Kuiack, to produce a further and better affidavit of documents, including relevant documents from a prior disability claim against Manulife.

The plaintiff had sued Panolam for wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, and Human Rights Code violations after his long-term disability benefits were terminated and his employment was deemed frustrated.

Panolam argued that the plaintiff's prior disability claim and associated medical evidence were relevant to defend against the current action, particularly regarding the plaintiff's health status and intent to return to work.

The court largely granted the defendant's motion, ordering the production of the Manulife disability claims file, settlement documents, pleadings, undertakings/refusals, and clinical notes and records from specific physicians up to the end of 2013.

A bank sought to recover approximately USD $5.4 million under guarantees related to credit facilities advanced to a UAE construction entity and alleged that settlement proceeds from unrelated international litigation were fraudulently conveyed to affiliated corporations to defeat its claim.

The plaintiff also sought to add numerous additional corporate and individual defendants, rely on the discoverability doctrine and misnomer exceptions to the Limitations Act, and pierce the corporate veil on the basis of a common enterprise among related companies.

The court held that most proposed defendants could not be added because the claims were statute‑barred and the discoverability doctrine did not apply due to the plaintiff’s lack of diligence in identifying corporate entities earlier in the litigation.

Although one entity was permitted to be added due to misnomer, the court found no fraudulent conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and declined to pierce the corporate veil, emphasizing the principle of separate corporate personality.

The plaintiff’s claims were dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The purchaser applied for the return of a $100,000 deposit after refusing to close a residential real estate transaction due to an outstanding building permit on the property.

The vendors obtained a commitment from a title insurer to insure over the open permit and offered to complete the transaction with a holdback pending closure of the permit.

The court held that, under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, a commitment for title insurance was sufficient to address the requisition regarding the open permit.

The purchaser failed to act in good faith by prematurely abandoning the transaction before the closing deadline and by not pursuing the available title insurance solution.

The purchaser was therefore in breach of the agreement and was not entitled to recover the deposit.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 37.14(1)(a) to set aside an ex parte order extending time to serve a statement of claim.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to make full and fair disclosure on the ex parte motion, including misrepresenting the existence of settlement discussions and failing to disclose a defendant’s bankruptcy, which stayed proceedings.

The affidavit supporting the ex parte motion also improperly relied on hearsay without identifying the source of information, contrary to Rule 39.01(4).

The court concluded that proper disclosure might have affected the granting of the order and that the evidentiary record was insufficient to justify the extension.

The ex parte order and the subsequent service of the statement of claim were set aside.