Daniel Matson

The moving parties, a law firm and its senior partner, were successful in a summary judgment motion dismissing the plaintiff's action against them.

The plaintiff had alleged that the moving parties knowingly assisted in a dishonest and fraudulent act by their client, but provided no evidence to support this claim.

The court found that making such serious, unfounded allegations of fraud and dishonesty against lawyers warranted censure.

Consequently, the court awarded the moving parties their costs of the summary judgment motion on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $25,000 for fees plus disbursements.

Following a successful motion by the receiver to approve the sale of the respondent's assets to the applicant, and the dismissal of a cross-motion by a third party claiming royalty rights, the court determined the costs payable by the third party.

The court rejected the applicant's request for substantial indemnity costs, awarding partial indemnity costs instead.

The court found the applicant's claimed fees reasonable given the importance and complexity of the issues, and ordered the third party to pay $29,705 to the applicant and $3,996.81 to the Monitor.

The Receiver moved for an order approving the sale of the debtor's mining assets to the applicant.

A third party opposed the sale, arguing its gross overriding royalty (GOR) rights constituted an interest in land that could not be extinguished by a vesting order.

The court applied the Dynex test and found the GORs were merely contractual rights to share in revenues, not an interest in land.

The court granted the vesting order, extinguishing the GORs upon payment of their fair appraised value.

The third party's cross-motion for a storage lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act was dismissed.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and former employee of a closely-held corporation, sought an oppression remedy or winding up order against the majority shareholder.

The applicant alleged oppressive conduct regarding unilateral business expansion decisions and his subsequent exclusion from the company.

The court dismissed the oppression claim, finding the applicant's reasonable expectations were not breached and he had voluntarily withdrawn from the business.

However, finding that the relationship between the parties had irretrievably broken down, the court granted relief under the 'just and equitable' provisions of s. 207 of the Business Corporations Act, ordering a trial of an issue to determine the fair market value of the applicant's shares and the terms of their purchase.

The applicant sought an order to assess the accounts of his former family law solicitor, totaling over $63,000.

The accounts had been paid, and the application was brought more than two years after the final account was delivered.

The court found that the initial order obtained by requisition was a nullity as it was outside the one-month time limit under s. 3(b) of the Solicitors Act.

However, the court exercised its discretion under ss. 4(1) and 11 of the Act, finding that 'special circumstances' existed to permit the assessment.

These circumstances included the applicant objecting to the accounts immediately after the retainer ended and the significant total amount of the bills for a relatively simple family law matter.

The plaintiff landlord sued the defendant tenant, a dental corporation, for breach of a commercial lease after the tenant abandoned the premises and stopped paying rent.

The tenant counterclaimed, arguing the landlord fundamentally breached the lease due to pest infestations, garbage, improper back charges, and unreasonably withholding consent to sublet.

The court found no fundamental breach, noting the tenant continued to operate for years despite the alleged issues and failed to provide sufficient information for proposed sublets.

The court also found the landlord reasonably mitigated its damages.

The landlord was awarded $86,615.97 for unpaid rent, utilities, and the cost of removing tenant improvements.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractor’s claim arising from a tender competition for construction of a medical centre.

The contractor alleged that the municipality breached Contract A by failing to award the project to it after applying an alternate price credit related to winter suspension of construction.

The court found that construction did not begin in fall 2013 and was never suspended during the winter as alleged in the pleadings, rendering the alternate credit inapplicable.

The municipality was entitled to evaluate bids based on base bid prices and was not required to adjust bids using alternate credits that were irrelevant to the project as ultimately undertaken.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion seeking a declaration that its former employee was in civil contempt of a consent order prohibiting solicitation of certain clients.

The alleged breach was based on an affidavit recounting statements and an email from a third‑party client asserting that the defendant had contacted the client and obtained an order.

The defendant denied solicitation and filed responding affidavit evidence explaining that the contact related to compensation for defective furniture supplied by his new employer.

The court held that the moving party’s evidence consisted entirely of hearsay concerning contested facts and therefore breached Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing contempt motions.

Because contempt is quasi‑criminal and requires strict procedural compliance and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the hearsay evidence was inadmissible and there was no admissible evidence to support the allegation.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for an order compelling the defendant contractor to comply with a request for information under s. 39(1)(2) of the Construction Lien Act.

The court found that the plaintiff was requesting information about a subcontract to which it was a party, and therefore should already have knowledge of the information sought.

The motion was dismissed.

A commercial tenant sought a declaration that its lease had been validly renewed for an additional five‑year term and alternatively requested relief from forfeiture under s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court held that the renewal clause, as amended, was unenforceable because it required rent to be determined by future agreement without providing a mechanism such as arbitration, making it an agreement to agree.

The tenant also failed to satisfy the conditions precedent for renewal, including timely written notice and compliance with lease obligations.

The court further found that s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act did not apply where the landlord was not seeking re‑entry during the existing term, and equitable relief was unavailable because the tenant sought to obtain a new right rather than preserve an existing one.

Waiver and estoppel arguments were rejected, particularly given a non‑waiver clause and the involvement of third‑party leasing arrangements.