David M. Adams

The Corporation of Loyalist Township sought to enforce an option to purchase two historic properties (Layer Cake Hall and Old Town Hall) from The Fairfield-Gutzeit Society for a nominal sum of two dollars each.

The Society, which received the properties from the former Village of Bath (predecessor to Loyalist Township) for preservation, had listed them for sale to the general public.

The Township argued this triggered its contractual option to repurchase.

The Society counter-applied, challenging the covenant's validity and enforceability, and seeking vacant possession due to the Township's alleged lease breaches.

The court found the Township's option to purchase was a valid contractual right, not an interest in land or a restrictive covenant, and was triggered by the Society's public listing of the properties.

The court granted specific performance to the Township, entitling it to purchase the properties.

The Township was also found to be in breach of its lease obligations by overholding, but this was deemed of limited consequence given the option to purchase outcome.

The plaintiffs brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion against the defendants regarding vicarious liability for the fraudulent acts of their employee.

The defendants sought their costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis, while the plaintiffs argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court ordered that the costs of the summary judgment motion be reserved to the trial judge, as the issues remained live and the work done would reduce trial costs.

The court also found the plaintiffs were entitled to substantial indemnity costs for their default judgment motion against the employee, but requested a revised costs outline.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add the spouse of the defendant corporate officer as a defendant for breach of the trust provisions of the Construction Lien Act.

The claim arose from unpaid invoices for drilling and blasting services performed on multiple solar energy projects, with the plaintiff alleging that trust funds received by the contractor were diverted.

The court considered whether the claim against the proposed defendant was statute‑barred and whether leave should be granted under the Rules of Civil Procedure to add a party.

The court held that the limitation period for the trust claim began when the trust monies were received, not when the plaintiff last performed work.

Because the motion to add the new defendant was brought within two years of discovering the payment of trust funds, and any prejudice could be remedied by costs, leave to amend was granted.

The plaintiff hired the defendants to perform renovations on his cottage, paying $21,000 for a flooring contract and $37,000 for time and materials.

After discovering he was being overcharged and that the defendants had removed a load-bearing wall without a permit, the plaintiff terminated the relationship and sued for breach of contract, negligence, assault, and punitive damages.

In an undefended trial, the court awarded the plaintiff $21,000 for the flooring contract due to a fundamental breach.

The claims for return of the renovation monies, assault, punitive damages, and a declaration under s. 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act were dismissed.

Following a summary judgment ruling arising from a failed real estate transaction, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had succeeded in obtaining damages for losses arising from the defendant’s failure to complete an agreement of purchase and sale, including damages for the resale loss and partial recovery of special damages.

The court considered the parties’ settlement offers, the degree of success, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the plaintiffs achieved overall success, the defendant’s litigation conduct was not unreasonable and included meaningful settlement offers and appropriate admissions.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiffs in a fixed amount.

Costs decision following a property dispute in which both parties claimed title to a cottage.

The plaintiff advanced claims based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, while the defendant estate sought clear title.

The trial judgment granted the plaintiff a 15‑year licence to use the property, producing a mixed outcome.

In determining costs, the court considered proportionality and the factors under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as settlement offers that did not engage Rule 49.

Finding the plaintiff was more successful overall, the court ordered the defendant estate to pay the plaintiff fixed costs of $50,000 all‑inclusive.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment following the defendant’s failure to close an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale for a farm property.

The defendant admitted breach but argued the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages by relisting the property in the fall rather than waiting until spring and by failing to move back into the property to reduce carrying costs.

The court applied the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding summary judgment and held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs acted reasonably in relisting the property promptly and accepting the first reasonable offer.

However, the court reduced certain ancillary damages due to partial failure to mitigate, ultimately awarding damages reflecting the resale price difference and several carrying costs.

The plaintiff sought enforcement of an alleged promise that a cottage would be left to her by will after she maintained, improved, and paid expenses for the property over approximately 25 years.

The estate denied that any enforceable promise existed and argued the plaintiff’s use of the cottage offset her expenditures.

The court found that the deceased had repeatedly encouraged the belief that the cottage would eventually be left to the plaintiff and that she relied on that expectation by investing significant labour and money into the property.

The court held that the elements of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment were established.

Instead of granting ownership or a monetary award, the court imposed an equitable remedy granting the plaintiff a 15‑year exclusive licence to occupy the cottage subject to payment of taxes, insurance, and utilities.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring production of numerous documents relating to police conduct during a blockade and the Crown’s duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before granting mining rights.

The moving parties argued the motion judge failed to give adequate reasons, misapplied relevance and proportionality principles under the Rules of Civil Procedure, and improperly assumed possession of certain documents.

The court held that the motion judge provided sufficient reasons and properly applied the relevance and proportionality requirements for documentary production.

The requested materials, including police notes and records related to consultation obligations, were highly relevant to claims involving access to property and alleged Crown negligence.

The defendants failed to establish good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and leave to appeal was refused.