Chris Moore

The appeal addressed whether a trustee under a labour and material payment bond must disclose the bond’s existence to potential beneficiaries.

A majority held that where non-disclosure would unreasonably disadvantage a beneficiary, fiduciary duties require reasonable notice steps.

Because the contractor did nothing to alert subcontractors in circumstances where such bonds were uncommon, it breached trust obligations, and the case was remitted for damages quantification.

Following the dismissal of a corporate plaintiff’s claim on summary judgment arising from a failed commercial real estate transaction, the court determined the appropriate allocation and quantum of costs among multiple parties.

The defendants sought elevated costs relying on offers to settle and alleged litigation tactics by the plaintiff.

The court awarded enhanced costs to the defendants and held that the controlling individual behind the corporate plaintiff could be personally liable for costs by piercing the corporate veil.

The court also interpreted an indemnity clause signed by a corporate officer as creating joint personal liability for full indemnity costs to one defendant.

Various additional costs claims by other parties were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision denying his motion to amend his statement of defence to withdraw an admission.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge applied the incorrect legal standard, holding the appellant to the pre-Antipas standard rather than the reformulated three-part test.

The appellant provided a reasonable explanation for the change of position, stating he only realized the plaintiff had not advanced the mortgage funds upon reading the summary judgment materials.

The Court held that the proposed amendment raised a triable issue and that there was no non-compensable prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was permitted to amend his pleadings.