Catherine E. Roberts

This motion concerned the enforcement of a settlement agreement reached between neighbouring property owners regarding a land boundary dispute.

The applicants sought an order vesting title of the disputed lands in their names, as per the agreement.

The respondents attempted to introduce new terms after the agreement was confirmed and part performance had occurred.

The court found a binding settlement agreement existed, supported by clarifying emails and part performance (survey work and iron bar placement), which also took the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds requirement for written contracts concerning land.

The motion was granted, enforcing the original settlement terms.

The appellant mother appealed an order reducing child and spousal support and dismissing her constructive trust claim.

The motion judge had refused the mother's request for an adjournment to complete previously ordered questioning, concluding the issues could be bifurcated and decided without it.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge denied the mother a fair hearing by jumping to the erroneous conclusion that questioning was unnecessary and by failing to allow full submissions on the issue.

A new hearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify an action against an investment advisor for negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and conspiracy as a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge made no error in principle and correctly concluded that a class action was not the preferable procedure due to the individual issues of detrimental reliance.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union 18 months after his discharge, and subsequently added the successor employer, TNT Canada Inc., as a respondent 21 months after the discharge.

TNT brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint against it due to extreme delay.

The Board found that the 21-month delay was extreme and caused significant prejudice to TNT, as it was not the employer at the time of discharge and the relevant management personnel had since left.

As the complainant failed to provide compelling labour relations reasons for the delay, the Board dismissed the claim for relief against TNT and adjourned the remainder of the complaint against the union.