Cynthia Rochelle Cooper Sefton

The appellants, plaintiffs in the underlying action, brought a motion before a single judge of the Court of Appeal seeking an order to compel the Regional Senior Judge to set an expedited four-week trial date.

This motion followed a previous Court of Appeal order that had set aside a partial summary judgment and directed the action to be restored to the trial list on an expedited basis.

The appellants argued that the action had not been restored as ordered.

The motion judge, assuming jurisdiction without deciding the *functus officio* argument, dismissed the motion.

The judge found that the previous order had not been breached and emphasized the inappropriateness of interfering with the trial judge's ongoing case management, who was actively preparing the case for trial.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing their action against Enbridge Inc. and Enbridge Solutions Inc. The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by allowing the summary judgment motion to proceed on the eve of a scheduled ten-week trial, causing unnecessary delay and expense.

Furthermore, the Court held that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Enbridge Inc.'s direct duty of care to the appellants, particularly concerning its public statements and policies on supervising its subsidiaries and contractors.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and costs order were set aside, and the action was restored for trial.

A public transit agency sought a declaration that a gas utility was contractually responsible for the cost of relocating pipelines where they crossed a rail corridor.

The pipelines had been installed pursuant to historical crossing agreements between the utility’s predecessor and a railway company, which were assigned to the transit agency when it purchased the rail corridor.

The utility argued the agreements did not apply where the pipelines ran along municipal road allowances and further contended the payment obligations were tied to federal railway regulation that did not apply to the transit agency.

The court held the crossing agreements were valid contractual obligations assigned to the transit agency and enforceable regardless of the regulatory status of the parties.

The utility was ordered to reimburse the transit agency for relocation costs exceeding $2.3 million plus interest.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim to recover damages from the respondent lawyer for amounts agreed to be paid to lien claimants in a prior consent judgment.

The appellant argued the respondent was estopped by conduct from contesting the validity of the lien claims and sought the return of a $10,000 retainer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the necessary representation and reliance for estoppel, and had no valid claim to the holdback from which the retainer was paid.

The appellant law partnership, a creditor of a bankrupt management company, brought an action under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act to set aside a transfer of assets to a related company.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding it was barred by the six-year limitation period in the Limitations Act or by the equitable doctrine of laches.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is neither an action on a simple contract nor an action upon the case, and thus is not caught by the six-year limitation period.

The Court also found a triable issue regarding whether the respondents suffered prejudice sufficient to establish the defence of laches.

On a chambers motion pending appeal, the appellant law firm sought to preserve funds representing part of a fire-loss damages award and certain personal property claimed as security for unpaid accounts.

The court held that the portion of the fire judgment standing in the place of the destroyed goods constituted a specific fund under Rule 45.02, including prejudgment interest, and that the appeal had sufficient apparent merit because the limitation and laches issues were arguable and non-frivolous.

The balance of convenience favoured continued preservation because there was no assurance the funds would remain available if released and no demonstrated need for immediate release to the respondents.

Orders preserving both the fund and the identified property pending appeal were granted.