Craig Alan Bryson

The defendants Robert Stewart and Indicom Appraisal Associates Ltd. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs, Correct Building Corporation and Correct Group Inc., claimed damages under various causes of action, including civil conspiracy, negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, unlawful interference with economic relations, and inducing breach of contract, stemming from an appraisal of the Allandale Station lands prepared for the City of Barrie.

The court dismissed the claims for civil conspiracy and negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation, finding no genuine issue for trial.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a mini-trial for the remaining claims (negligence, inducing breach of contract, wrongful interference with economic relations) concerning the limitation period and the enforceability of the Preliminary Agreement, particularly regarding the role of an agent and the impact of environmental/archaeological issues on property value.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order staying its action for wrongful termination and tortious misconduct based on a forum selection clause in an Exclusive Sales Agreement.

The clause required disputes to be settled by binding arbitration in Germany.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the broad language of the clause captured both the contract and tort claims against the contracting party.

The majority also upheld the stay against the non-contracting respondents, finding their claims were factually intertwined with those against the contracting party.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal in part, finding no jurisdiction to force arbitration on non-parties.

The appellant property owner appealed a forfeiture order made under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The property, a 12-unit apartment building, was the site of extensive drug-related criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the owner was not a 'responsible owner' because he knew of the criminal activity and failed to take meaningful steps to prevent it.

The Court also agreed that the appellant failed to establish that forfeiture was clearly not in the interests of justice, given that the unlawful activity permeated the entire building.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and a subsequent default judgment of over $1.1 million.

The plaintiff had obtained the default judgment without notifying the defendants, despite ongoing settlement discussions and an earlier agreement to hold the action in abeyance pending a jurisdictional challenge.

The court found that the defendants moved promptly upon learning of the judgment, adequately explained the default as resulting from a reasonable belief that the action was in abeyance, and demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits regarding the termination of the distributorship agreement.

The motion was granted and the default judgment was set aside.

The Attorney General applied under the Civil Remedies Act for forfeiture of a 12‑unit residential apartment building alleged to be an instrument of unlawful activity.

Extensive police evidence showed persistent drug trafficking, frequent search warrants, arrests, and widespread criminal activity occurring throughout the building and surrounding areas.

The court found the property was used for unlawful activity likely to result in the acquisition of property through drug trafficking and therefore qualified as an instrument of unlawful activity under the statute.

The owner failed to establish that he was a responsible owner, having taken inadequate steps to prevent or address the criminal activity despite knowledge of it.

The court concluded that forfeiture was not clearly contrary to the interests of justice and ordered the property forfeited to the Crown.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant abandoned his claim for Wallace damages against one of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the facts pleaded did not support a claim for punitive damages against that respondent.

The Court also refused to grant leave to amend the statement of claim to plead negligent investigation, as there was no evidence the appellant was dismissed due to such an investigation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.