Daniel Chitiz

The plaintiff brought a motion to examine representatives of two non-party corporate shareholders (Lake and JLA) under Rule 31.03(8), arguing the action was being defended for their immediate benefit due to an indemnification agreement and litigation accrual fund.

The plaintiff also sought a further and better affidavit of documents.

The court found that the non-parties had a direct financial interest in the outcome and were beneficial parties.

The court ordered the examinations of the non-parties' principals, limited to 10 hours total, and ordered the defendant to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff real estate brokerage sued the defendants for a $250,000 commission under a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) after the defendants purchased a commercial property.

The sole issue at trial was whether the defendant signed a specific initial on the BRA extending its term to one year, which would cover the date of the purchase.

Both parties called forensic document examiners to testify on the authenticity of the initial.

The court found the plaintiff's expert more reliable and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the defendant did sign the initial.

The plaintiff was awarded the $250,000 commission.

The plaintiff surety brought a motion for summary judgment against an individual defendant based on an indemnity agreement guaranteeing reimbursement for payments made under lien bonds issued for several corporate defendants.

The defendant denied signing the agreement and alternatively asserted the defence of non est factum, alleging she had not understood the nature of the document.

The court found on the evidence, including the testimony of a subscribing witness and the defendant’s cross‑examination, that the defendant had signed the agreement.

The court held the defence of non est factum was unavailable because there was no evidence of misrepresentation and the defendant had been careless in signing documents without inquiry.

Summary judgment was granted for the amount paid under the bonds, while the claim for additional fees and expenses was not granted due to lack of evidentiary support.

The appellants appealed a Registrar's order requiring a family farming corporation to disclose documents and its directors to submit to examinations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The trustee sought the information to value the bankrupt's shares in the corporation.

The appellants argued the trustee's access should be limited to shareholder rights under the OBCA.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trustee is entitled to information relevant to valuing the shares and that there is no conflict between the BIA and directors' duties under the OBCA.

The court granted the trustee's cross-appeal, holding the Registrar lacked authority to order written interrogatories in lieu of an oral examination under s. 163 of the BIA, and awarded costs to the trustee.