Daniel J. Matson

An insolvent mining company, Dianor Resources Inc., had mining claims subject to gross overriding royalties (GORs) in favour of 2350614 Ontario Inc. (235Co).

A receiver was appointed and approved a sale of the mining claims to Third Eye Capital Corporation.

The motion judge granted a vesting order that purported to extinguish the GORs, finding they did not constitute interests in land.

The Court of Appeal reversed this finding, holding that the GORs were interests in land under the test established in Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum Ltd. The court found the motion judge made three legal errors: failing to examine the parties' intentions holistically, requiring the royalty holder to have entry rights, and mischaracterizing the interest from which the royalty was carved.

The court did not finally determine whether the motion judge had jurisdiction to extinguish the GORs and required further submissions on this issue and on remedies.

An employee with a disability developed arm and hand problems due to work demands and was placed on medical leave, then terminated.

The employee sued for wrongful dismissal and Human Rights Code violations.

The trial judge awarded 15 months' pay in lieu of notice and $10,000 in damages, finding the employer had accommodated the disability to the point of undue hardship and that disability was a factor in termination.

On appeal, the employee sought additional damages for lost income during the leave period, while the employer cross-appealed arguing the employment contract was frustrated.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with the court finding no palpable and overriding error by the trial judge.

The plaintiff, a salesman with over fifteen years of service, claimed damages for wrongful or constructive dismissal, workplace harassment, and discrimination based on disability under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The defendant denied the allegations, arguing the contract was abandoned or frustrated, and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages.

The court found no objective basis for the plaintiff's harassment claims, no constructive dismissal, and concluded that the employment contract was frustrated due to the plaintiff's inability to return to work.

All claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Finn Way General Contractor Inc., brought an uncontested trial for judgment against the defendant, Senator Group Inc., after the defendant was noted in default for breach of contract.

The defendant failed to construct pre-fabricated buildings as per the purchase order, leading the plaintiff to incur significant additional costs to complete the project with other contractors.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff damages for the excess costs incurred, plus pre- and post-judgment interest and costs.

This decision addresses a motion for the appointment of a case management judge to oversee two complex and intertwined files (an application and an action) involving numerous parties and pending motions.

The court found that the litigation had become unmanageable and would benefit from a single judge providing directions and making procedural orders to expedite the proceedings.

Justice Pierce, already familiar with the matters, was appointed as the case management judge under Rules 37.15 and 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with all future motions to be heard by her.

The applicant, Robert Buys, successfully applied for an assessment of 17 accounts rendered by the respondent law firm, Carrel + Partners LLP, totaling $63,378.84.

The law firm opposed the application.

Buys sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the firm should have consented and delayed the process, and that his offer to settle was better than the outcome.

The court found that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted as the firm's conduct did not meet the threshold of "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous." The court awarded partial indemnity costs, considering the applicant's success, the moderate complexity of the issues, the significance of the accounts, and the applicant's offer to settle (though not compliant with Rule 49.03).

The court reduced the claimed hours and disallowed certain disbursements, ultimately awarding $5,000 for fees plus HST, and $125 for photocopying and courier costs plus HST.

A commercial tenant applied for a declaration that the landlord had wrongfully or excessively distrained its assets.

The court found that the landlord's actions, including changing locks, did not terminate the tenancy because the tenant maintained conditional access.

However, the court could not determine on the record whether rent was in arrears or if the distraint was excessive, as these issues required further evidence.

The application was therefore directed to proceed as an action for damages, with costs reserved.

The plaintiff managed a resort under an oral commission-based agreement and sued following termination of the relationship.

The court determined the plaintiff was an independent contractor rather than a dependent contractor and therefore not entitled to reasonable notice of termination.

The defendants breached the agreement by failing to pay commissions on revenues received prior to termination, and were also liable for modest damages for conversion of personal property and for unjust enrichment relating to additional services performed as the defendants’ de facto Canadian agent.

The court rejected claims for further commissions, punitive damages, and most conversion damages.

The defendants succeeded on a counterclaim for possession of two boat motors.