Christopher M. Stanek

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found that there was a triable issue as to whether an agreement was reached, as the appellant had insisted on personal releases from other shareholders which were never provided, and subsequent correspondence from the respondent introduced new terms such as a non-competition clause.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment below set aside.

The appellants appealed a decision preventing them from continuing their set-off claims in Ontario.

The parties had previously agreed by a consent order in New York to submit these claims to binding arbitration and dismiss the Ontario action.

The appellants failed to pursue their claims in the arbitration, citing uncollectibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that allowing the appellants to continue their claims in Ontario twelve years later would constitute an abuse of process.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action and allowing the respondent's counterclaim on a promissory note arising from a share purchase agreement.

The appellants had alleged unconscionability, economic duress, and oppression.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by deciding which competing inferences should be preferred from primary facts in evidence on a motion for summary judgment.

The court concluded there were genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent trustee in bankruptcy on a guarantee signed by the appellants for the respondent's fees.

The motions judge had also directed a reference to the Registrar in Bankruptcy to determine the reasonable quantum of those fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of independent legal advice was not a free-standing defence and there was no evidence the appellants misunderstood the guarantee.

The Court also upheld the motions judge's discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to direct a reference to the Registrar in Bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for oral reasons given.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent in the fixed amount of $4,000 all inclusive.

The appellants, Ontario defendants, sought to stay proceedings in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing there were parallel proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash and the appeal, noting the remarkable feature that the Ontario defendants sought to stay proceedings in their home jurisdiction while their U.S. counterpart denied the proceedings were parallel.

The court found a clear juridical advantage for the respondent to proceed in Ontario, where the contracts were offered and the defendants' assets were located.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $1,173,960 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages for breach of a construction management contract.

The respondent had worked for 17 months without pay before being abruptly terminated on the eve of his entitlement to substantial compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the contract to assess damages, properly declined to consider mitigation as it was not pleaded, and appropriately awarded punitive damages given the appellant's reprehensible conduct.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to repay $47,000 improperly withdrawn from a letter of credit and $7,786.56 for cleaning and grading costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for an alleged overpayment of interest on a vendor take-back mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the letter of credit draw, issue estoppel, or the mortgage interest payments.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against Mercedes-Benz Credit of Canada.

The appellant alleged that Mercedes improperly interfered with his negotiations with his insurer regarding a truck damaged by fire, causing a decrease in the truck's value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's claim that Mercedes improperly interfered, as Mercedes had a legitimate interest in the vehicle and the insurance proceeds.

The appellants appealed an order finding that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the claim fell outside the ambit of the arbitration clause in the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.