Catherine M. Patterson

The plaintiff Beechhill Capital Corp. brought a motion for summary judgment on a promissory note in the amount of $1,372,230.00 issued by the defendants.

The defendants acknowledged the debt but raised defences including lack of consideration, statute of limitations, oppression claims, and misrepresentation regarding the value of pledged HEXO shares.

The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the defences lacked merit.

The court determined that valuable consideration existed through antecedent debt and forbearance, the limitation period had not expired as the note was renewed, oppression was not a valid defence to a promissory note, and the alleged misrepresentations could not have induced the defendants to sign the note since the debt predated the note and the defendants had knowledge of the share dispositions.

The court found Bryan Lozon in contempt for failing to deliver three of four specific snowmobiles as required by a Court of Appeal order, concluding that he had tampered with VIN tags and delivered incomplete or incorrect items.

The decision reviews the factual background, the evidence regarding each snowmobile, and the legal test for contempt, ultimately finding that Bryan's explanations were not credible and that he had wilfully failed to comply with the order.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing an action, primarily sounding in defamation, under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff (appellant) had not discharged his burden under s. 137.1(4).

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in his consideration of the respondents' defences to the defamation claims and in his weighing of the public interest in the expressions against the plaintiff's interest in proceeding.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff had established grounds to believe the action had substantial merit and the respondents had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the action to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the impugned expressions.

The appeal was allowed, and the action was permitted to proceed in its entirety.

This appeal concerned the enforceability of Minutes of Settlement signed by family members to resolve three lawsuits involving property and personal injury claims.

The lower court dismissed motions to enforce the settlement, finding a misunderstanding regarding specific equipment (a tractor and snowmobiles) based on subjective intentions.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle by relying on subjective evidence rather than an objective interpretation of the contract.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the Court clarified the terms for the tractor (correcting a typographical error) and snowmobiles, concluding that a valid agreement existed.

This endorsement addresses costs and damages following the dismissal of the plaintiff's anti-SLAPP action against several defendants.

The court applied the presumptive full indemnity costs rule under s. 137.1(7) of the Courts of Justice Act, finding no reason to depart from it given the retaliatory nature of the plaintiff's litigation and his failure to provide a costs outline for comparison.

The court fixed costs for each successful defendant, making minor reductions from the amounts claimed.

While damages were sought by two defendants under s. 137.1(9), only one was awarded, as the court found the other defendant's conduct contributed to her stress, making a damages award inappropriate.

The plaintiff corporation brought an action for solicitor negligence against the defendant lawyer and his firm, alleging they owed and breached duties to the plaintiff in relation to a 2010 real estate transaction, causing the plaintiff to lose financing it had extended.

The transaction involved mortgage fraud perpetrated by the purchaser and his partner.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendant lawyer did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, either through a solicitor-client relationship or as an exceptional duty to a non-client third party, as there was no retainer, no instructions, and no reasonable reliance by the plaintiff on the lawyer.

The court heard multiple motions in a long-running dispute over a real estate transaction and mortgage discharge.

The third party sought summary judgment dismissing claims against it as statute-barred and disclosing no cause of action.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their pleadings and summary judgment dismissing parts of the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant sought leave to amend his defence to plead equitable setoff.

The court granted the motions for leave to amend pleadings, finding them tenable in law.

However, the court dismissed the motions for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding the expiry of limitation periods, discoverability, and the third party claim for contribution and indemnity.