Daniel J. Leduc

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The motions judge found a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent knew or ought to have known that the water leakage was caused by the appellants' acts or omissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion or his decision not to exercise fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04, as resolving the discoverability issue would require considering virtually all trial evidence.

The court addressed costs relating to a motion for leave in a construction litigation matter involving a contractor, architect, and other construction parties.

On consent of the parties, the court fixed the costs of the motion for leave.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $6,000 plus HST to one defendant and $6,000 plus HST to the remaining defendants.

The costs were ordered payable in the cause of the appeal.

The applicant, Bot Construction Limited, sought judicial review of the Ministry of Transportation's decision to award a road construction contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued that the winning bid was non-compliant because it failed to declare imported steel, despite the project specifications requiring rolled steel beams that are unavailable in Canada.

The Divisional Court found that the Ministry's decision that the bid was compliant was unreasonable, as the bid could not meet the mandatory specifications using only Canadian steel.

The Court held that the Ministry breached its duty of fairness by privately accepting the winning bidder's proposal to substitute welded steel without notifying other bidders, and quashed the contract award.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the motion judge's conclusion that the parties never reached a meeting of the minds on an arbitration clause or a choice of laws provision.

The Court also agreed that the transfer motion was premature because the statement of defence had not yet been filed and the witnesses were unknown, making it impossible to determine the most convenient venue.

The appellant appealed an order staying his employment action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding the parties had agreed to a choice of law clause in an unsigned document.

Applying the test for the most appropriate forum, the Court held the respondents failed to demonstrate that Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum, noting the employment contract was carried out in Ontario and the proximity of Ottawa and Blainville minimized convenience factors.

The appeal was allowed and the stay set aside.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a consent order dismissing its action against the respondent.

The motion judge found that the appellant would not have consented to the order but for a misrepresentation, but refused to set it aside because the appellant did not demonstrate a genuine issue for trial or prejudice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in principle by expanding the test for setting aside consent orders.

The consent order was set aside.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that a competing tender contained only minor irregularities that could be corrected within 48 hours under the municipal purchasing bylaw.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's determination.

The cross-appeal was withdrawn, and costs were awarded to the respondent municipality.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent commissions for breach of contract.

The respondent had entered into an 11-month contract with the appellant to provide customs consulting services.

The trial judge found that the contract entitled the respondent to commissions for clients he acquired, even after the contract expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's interpretation that the agreement provided for commissions beyond the fixed term.

A dissenting opinion argued that commissions should only be payable for work done during the contractual term.

The appellant municipality appealed an order declaring that an amended lease remained in force and that the parties should proceed to arbitration under that lease.

Reviewing the correspondence and internal memoranda, the court held the parties had reached a meeting of the minds on revised terms, including early termination, which superseded the prior lease arrangement.

The application judge erred in finding there had been no acceptance of renegotiation proposals.

The appeal was allowed, the application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the appellant.