Bruce Neil Baron

The appellant brought a motion to stay her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board decision pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute a collateral attack on the Board's order.

However, the court granted the appellant a six-month extension to perfect her appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments of $1,675 to the respondent in trust.

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 applicant landlord brought an application for a declaration that the respondent tenant's option to terminate its commercial lease had expired before it was exercised.

The dispute centered on the correct 'Commencement Date' of the lease, which dictated the termination window.

The landlord relied on a registered notice of lease stating the date was October 27, 2005, while the tenant argued the lease terms dictated November 14, 2005.

The court held that the lease's express language established November 14, 2005 as the Commencement Date, and the erroneous notice of lease did not amend the contract.

The court also rejected the landlord's equitable estoppel argument, noting the landlord had actual notice of the lease terms prior to purchasing the property.

The tenant's notice of termination was deemed effective.

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.

The appellant sued for wrongful dismissal after his employment was terminated.

The trial judge concluded that the appellant was employed under a fixed-term contract and was terminated in accordance with its terms.

On appeal, the appellant argued the employment relationship was of indefinite duration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the written contracts were clear and unequivocal, and the appellant understood his employment was speculative and could be terminated on a moment's notice.