Charles Lun

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's decision dismissing his action to set aside minutes of settlement dated July 18, 2017, relating to an estate dispute.

The minutes permitted the respondent to purchase an estate property in Coldwater, Ontario for $290,000, with the appellant to receive this amount from remaining estate assets following probate.

The respondent moved into the property but probate remained incomplete eight years later.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent's failure to provide a detailed list of estate chattels did not constitute repudiation of the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and holding that both parties were jointly responsible for the delay in probate.

A land developer appealed the dismissal of his civil action against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process.

The developer had sought site plan approval and variance applications for a property development, all of which were denied through administrative processes including the Committee of Adjustment and the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Rather than pursuing judicial review, the developer sued the City alleging impropriety and misconduct, seeking damages and costs.

The motion judge dismissed the action as a collateral attack on administrative decisions and refused leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reviewable error and no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision to refuse amendment.

The moving party tenant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent landlord from interfering with its use of a commercial truck yard.

The respondent had been using the property without paying rent and had locked the moving party out following a violent robbery.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding that the continuous interference with the tenant's property rights constituted irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the tenant.

The court ordered the respondent to vacate the property and granted the tenant exclusive possession.

Following a summary judgment motion determining the applicable interest rate on a mortgage, the parties disputed the principal amount payable and costs.

The plaintiff claimed the principal was $350,000 based on a second mortgage commitment and relied on proprietary estoppel and part performance.

The defendants argued the principal was $337,755 as the full amount was not advanced.

The court rejected the plaintiff's equitable arguments, finding no detrimental reliance, and determined the principal payable was $339,840, which included the amount advanced plus an outstanding broker fee.

Costs were awarded to the successful defendants on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $24,877.93.