Christopher W. Statham

The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entirely successful.

The court received written submissions on costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs of the appeal fixed at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding the amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action against his insurer for breach of contract and conversion.

The appellant claimed $25,000 in damages, including for psychological distress, after the insurer automatically renewed his motorcycle insurance policy and withdrew a premium payment, which was promptly returned upon cancellation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the policy remained in force until expressly cancelled, and that the claimed damages were not reasonably foreseeable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance to purchase a property based on a right of first refusal agreement signed by her late husband and his brothers.

The defendant purchaser brought a cross-motion to dismiss the claim.

The court found that the agreement unambiguously granted the right of first refusal only to the 'parties' (the brothers), not to 'family members' like the plaintiff.

The court declined to admit parol evidence of intention and held that the doctrine of privity of contract precluded the plaintiff from enforcing the agreement.

The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ pleadings for failure to comply with a production order requiring an accounting of revenues and supporting documents relating to the exploitation of certain patented shoe insole technology.

The plaintiffs had initially failed to meet the deadline and their early attempts at compliance were deficient, but they later produced extensive supplementary disclosure and accounting materials.

The court held that although the plaintiffs’ record‑keeping was poor, they had made earnest efforts and had achieved substantial compliance with the production order.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the pleadings, emphasizing the preference for deciding civil disputes on their merits and the absence of wilful non‑compliance.

The plaintiffs’ cross‑motion seeking leave to revive a previously adjourned summary judgment motion was also dismissed because the action was imminently scheduled for trial and the motion could disrupt the trial schedule.