Charles Hammond

The plaintiff brought an unopposed summary judgment motion against the defendant to determine the quantum of damages following a liability trial where the defendants were found liable for breach of confidence and misappropriating trade secrets.

Relying on uncontradicted expert evidence, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and awarded the plaintiff $776,000 in economic damages for lost sales and inability to increase prices, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

The plaintiff mortgagee sought summary judgment on multiple defaulted mortgages granted to the defendants to fund a joint venture land development project.

The defendants argued the mortgages were unenforceable due to an oral agreement that the loans would only be repaid from future lot sales, and disputed the amounts owing.

The court granted summary judgment, holding that the alleged oral agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds and the doctrine of part performance did not apply.

The court also declined to stay the enforcement of the judgments under Rule 20.08, finding the defendants' counterclaims lacked merit and the prejudice to the plaintiffs in delaying recovery was significant.

The defendants brought a motion to consolidate several debt enforcement actions with a related action they commenced against the plaintiff and others, arising from a failed joint venture.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the debt enforcement actions were capable of summary determination and that the balance of convenience did not favour consolidation, as it would unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the debt claims.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the plaintiff's controlling mind, Mr. Beach, for allegedly violating previous court orders, and an interlocutory injunction to restrain him from interfering in the management of joint venture development projects.

The court dismissed the motion for an injunction, finding it unnecessary as the parties had reached an understanding regarding the interpretation of the joint venture agreements.

The court also declined to make a finding of contempt, noting that while Mr. Beach's conduct was not condoned, it did not rise to the level requiring a contempt order and would be better addressed through costs.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for a certificate of pending litigation to stop power of sale proceedings, the successful parties sought costs.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the defendants' pursuit of the motion without evidence or pleading of fraud in relation to the mortgages was reprehensible conduct.

The court fixed the costs at $24,500, noting that the amount was fair and reasonable given the urgency and complexity of the inter-related actions.

The defendants in a mortgage enforcement action brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation over nine parcels of land to stop power of sale proceedings.

They alleged that the mortgages were unenforceable due to the plaintiffs' breach of joint venture agreements and bad faith.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had no reasonable claim to an interest in land, had not offered to redeem the mortgages, had not pleaded fraud affecting the right to redeem, and that damages would be a sufficient remedy.

The defendants brought a motion to stay or transfer two Small Claims Court actions commenced by the plaintiff to the Superior Court, where a related misrepresentation action was pending.

The Superior Court action alleged misrepresentations inducing the franchise agreement, while the Small Claims Court actions alleged post-agreement contractual breaches regarding a promotion fund and fee reductions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the actions were factually and legally distinct, and that transferring the smaller claims would impose an unnecessary financial burden on the plaintiff.