Cynthia Petersen

The defendant insurer brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that it is entitled to deduct $46,915.85 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) previously received by the plaintiff from any Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits that may become payable.

The plaintiff argued that the IRBs were largely for periods where no LTD benefits were payable and that her accident benefits insurer had already offset prospective LTD benefits when calculating her IRBs.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record was deficient on both sides and that interpreting the LTD policy in light of the disputed factual matrix constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendants brought motions under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, alleging "theft of trade secret" related to shilajit in vitamin compositions.

The plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim of a "trade secret" was invalid because the information had been publicly disclosed through patent applications, thereby forfeiting any confidentiality.

Furthermore, the plaintiff had assigned all rights, title, and interest in the invention to Creative Nutrition Canada Corp. in 1991, thus lacking proprietary interest to assert any claim.

The court concluded that the statement of claim, even with proposed amendments, was certain to fail.

The moving party solicitor sought to set aside an assessment order and dismiss the responding party client's claims regarding disputed legal accounts, alleging delay and non-compliance with previous interlocutory orders.

The court found that the client had substantially complied with the orders, noting that the solicitor's own delay in producing detailed dockets contributed to the timeline.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the assessment order or compel discovery, and instead issued directions to govern the upcoming assessment hearing.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing to set a litigation timetable for actions commenced over six years prior regarding failed investments.

The responding defendants sought to dismiss the actions for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for a three-year period of delay and that the defendants would suffer non-compensable prejudice due to fading memories and lost documents.

The actions were dismissed for delay.

The moving party, a religious corporation, brought a motion to set aside a consent order that enforced a settlement agreement regarding unpaid loans.

The moving party argued the settlement was executed by a rogue director without board authorization and that its former counsel consented to the order against instructions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the director had consulted the board and obtained approval, the counsel acted on valid instructions, and there was no material change in circumstances or clear injustice to warrant setting aside the final order.

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the corporation failed to adequately address ongoing water leaks in her unit, committed unauthorized entries, and acted abusively.

The court found that while the corporation's communication was deficient and it committed one unlawful entry, it had fulfilled its duty to maintain and repair the common elements by conducting extensive investigations and repairs.

The court concluded that the corporation's conduct, viewed in context, was not harsh, vindictive, or oppressive.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 against the respondent for allegedly negligent truck maintenance.

The appellant claimed the respondent allowed rainwater into his truck's fuel system during a roadside repair, causing extensive engine damage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove causation and noting the absence of expert evidence.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against a lubrication facility for alleged negligence during a roadside service call.

The appellant claimed the respondent allowed rainwater into his truck's fuel system, causing extensive mechanical damage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove causation and noting the lack of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in assessing the evidence and concluding the appellant had not met his burden of proof.

The Attorney General brought motions for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 regarding $7,950.05 seized from an individual during a traffic stop and a subsequent search warrant execution, and for an order dispensing with service on that individual.

The court found that the Attorney General had made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to locate and serve the individual, making service impractical, and that dispensing with service was in the interests of justice.

The court also found reasonable grounds to believe the currency was the proceeds or an instrument of drug trafficking, and granted the preservation order, leaving any potential Charter issues regarding the continued detention of the funds to be decided at the forfeiture hearing.

The applicant purchaser sought specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a condominium unit after the respondent vendor refused to close the transaction.

The application proceeded unopposed.

The court applied the test from Semelhago, finding that the property was sufficiently unique due to its size, wheelchair accessibility, and location, which were necessary for the applicant's elderly and disabled mother.

The court granted specific performance, ordering the respondent to deliver clear title, and awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the respondent's inexcusable conduct.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant ex-wife, who had signed a personal guarantee for her ex-husband's corporate loan.

The defendant argued the guarantee was invalid due to undue influence and deficient independent legal advice obtained in Jamaica.

The court found no evidence of actual or presumed undue influence, and held that the bank was entitled to rely on the certificate of independent legal advice.

Summary judgment was granted for the debt, but pre-judgment interest was restricted to commence from the date the defendant actually learned of the action, as the original demand letter and statement of claim were never properly served on her.

The applicant private lender brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against two properties owned by the respondent, claiming an equitable mortgage after a mortgage transaction failed to close.

Although the court found a triable issue regarding the equitable mortgage claim, it dismissed the motion on equitable grounds.

The court reasoned that the applicant had no intended use for the properties, the properties were not unique, and the alternative claim for damages would be an adequate and easily calculable remedy.