Daniel Michaud-Shields

HSBC Bank Canada appealed a summary judgment decision in its favour against Antonio Guido on a personal loan guarantee.

Guido, the principal of Royal Canadian Bedrock Inc., had defaulted on a loan and was bound by a personal guarantee.

Guido's principal defence was that HSBC was bound by a side agreement allegedly engineered by Bruno Campoli, who was retained as an exclusive agent for both Guido and RCB.

Guido claimed Campoli and Michael Thomas & Associates Inc. were also acting as agents for HSBC and made misrepresentations that HSBC would not enforce the guarantee.

Guido also alleged a conspiracy to extract unlawful fees.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to HSBC and dismissed Guido's counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and no evidentiary support for Guido's allegations after five years of litigation.

The plaintiff security company sued two former part-time supervisors and a related corporation for breach of fiduciary duty, misuse of confidential information, and wrongful competition after they were laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants counterclaimed for constructive dismissal and intentional interference with economic relations.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding the defendants were not fiduciaries, did not possess confidential information, and were free to work for competitors.

The court also dismissed the counterclaim, finding the defendants failed to prove any damages for constructive dismissal and failed to establish an actionable wrong for the intentional interference claim.

This appeal concerned whether the appellants (vendors) were entitled to terminate an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a vacant lot under paragraph 10 (the "annulment clause") of the OREA standard form APS due to writs of execution against title.

The motion judge found the appellants breached the contract by not exercising the annulment power reasonably and ordered specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a vendor must make genuine efforts to satisfy title requisitions and cannot rely on the annulment clause if encumbrances, such as writs of execution, could be cleared from the sale proceeds.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a vacant residential lot.

The defendant vendors had refused to close the transaction, claiming they were unable to remove outstanding writs of execution from title and treating the agreement as terminated.

The court found that the defendants failed to act in good faith to clear the title, as they could have paid the executions from the sale proceeds or paid the funds into court.

The court also found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given its location and affordability.

The plaintiffs' motion for specific performance was granted and the defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The defendants brought motions to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged he was racially profiled and falsely accused of theft at a trade show.

The court dismissed the motions brought by the exhibitor and security company defendants, finding the claim disclosed potential causes of action in negligence, misrepresentation, and defamation when read generously.

The court granted the motion brought by the event organizer, striking the claim against it without leave to amend, as no reasonable cause of action was discernible.

The defendants, based in Quebec, moved to set aside service of the statement of claim outside Ontario and to stay the proceeding on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiffs, based in Ontario, sued for breach of contract and warranty regarding allegedly defective spas.

The court found that the contract was made in Ontario through the plaintiffs' continuous acceptance of terms, justifying service outside Ontario under Rule 17.02.

The court also declined to stay the proceeding, finding that while Quebec had jurisdiction over a related action, it was not clearly a more appropriate forum for this specific dispute.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add two proposed defendants, Maple-Crete Inc. and RoyalCrest Paving and Contracting Ltd., in place of a "John Doe Maintenance Company" defendant, relying on the doctrine of misnomer or, alternatively, discoverability under Rule 5.04.

The court found that the pleading lacked sufficient particularity to satisfy the misnomer doctrine, as an objective reading would not clearly point to the proposed defendants.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the proposed defendants' identities within the limitation period, as simple inquiries could have revealed them much earlier.

Consequently, the motion to add the proposed defendants was dismissed, as the claim against them was statute-barred.

Appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim against Lloyd's of London on the basis that the action was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action arose from a 2000 Greyhound bus accident where a passenger grabbed the steering wheel, causing the bus to roll.

The appellants obtained a judgment against the passenger at trial in 2012 but did not pursue recovery from Lloyd's of London until 2016, claiming Lloyd's was the insurer for the passenger.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the limitation period commenced from the trial judgment date and had expired before the action was commenced.

The defendant was successful on a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $73,904.88, or alternatively $58,976.58 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive and suggested $20,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as there was no offer to settle or reprehensible conduct.

Finding overlap and excessive hours in the defendant's bill of costs, the court awarded the defendant $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.