David Morin

The respondents purchased a motel and gas station from the appellants.

The trial judge found the appellants fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the underground fuel tank system and breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by failing to provide a required safety compliance report.

The trial judge awarded damages based on the cost to replace the tank system.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred by not granting an adjournment due to late disclosure of a Pierringer agreement, misapprehending evidence about compliance alternatives, and using the wrong measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants never requested an adjournment or stay at trial, and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of damages or contractual interpretation.

The plaintiffs purchased a motel and gas station from the defendants.

Prior to the sale, the defendants represented that the fuel tank system was in good condition and only required routine testing, concealing outstanding TSSA orders and a history of non-compliance.

The Agreement of Purchase and Sale included a clause requiring the defendants to provide a report confirming the system was safe and compliant, which they failed to do.

The plaintiffs subsequently discovered the system was non-compliant and faced closure by the TSSA, forcing them to incur significant costs to install a new system.

The court found the defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

The court also found the plaintiffs' real estate lawyer negligent for failing to adequately protect them in the transaction.

Liability for the $635,189.12 in damages was apportioned 80% to the defendants and 20% to the lawyer.

The defendants brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of an affidavit filed by the plaintiffs in support of an upcoming summary judgment motion regarding an insurance coverage dispute.

The defendants argued the subjective extrinsic evidence was irrelevant and would needlessly complicate the summary judgment hearing.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under the expanded powers of Rule 20, issues of admissibility and relevancy are best left to the judge hearing the summary judgment motion to avoid bifurcating the process and wasting judicial resources.

The plaintiffs purchased a cottage and later discovered significant structural issues and Building Code violations during renovations.

They sued the Township for negligent building inspections and failure to enforce the Building Code Act.

The court found that the Township owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs and breached that duty by granting a building permit without proper plans and failing to identify structural deficiencies during inspections.

The Township was held liable for the costs to remedy the Code violations and for the plaintiffs' mental distress, resulting in a total damages award of $361,875.33.

Following the successful summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' action due to the expiry of the limitation period, the successful defendants sought costs of $15,000 each.

The plaintiffs argued for a reduced amount of $10,000 each, noting the lack of settlement offers and the principle of proportionality.

The court applied the factors under Rule 57 and the principles from Boucher and Davies, concluding that the defendants' requested amount was fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $15,000 in costs to each defendant.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend a building permit issued by the town for the construction of a dock on a neighbouring waterfront property.

The applicant argued the proposed location differed from a previously approved site plan and would eventually house a boathouse that would obstruct his view.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the planning process, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the dock's construction, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent property owner.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for negligent construction of a cottage and retaining wall, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs experienced slope failure and retaining wall movement in 2009 and received an engineering report identifying the issue, but did not commence their action until 2013.

The court found that the plaintiffs knew the basic essential facts giving rise to a claim upon receiving the 2009 engineering report.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce payment obligations under a promissory note arising from a share purchase agreement and to enforce a personal guarantee.

The defendants argued that the payment schedule was triggered by completion of a later adjustment process relating to the purchase price rather than the original closing date of the transaction.

The court interpreted the promissory note in light of the share purchase agreement and amendment agreement and held that the payment schedule was triggered by the closing date of the share purchase, not the later adjustment process.

The court further held that the individual guarantor was jointly and severally liable under the guarantee and indemnity.

Summary judgment was granted for the outstanding amounts owing under the promissory note and an additional balance relating to a loan payable to the parent company.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a stay of a summary judgment proceeding concerning unpaid promissory notes, arguing the dispute must proceed to arbitration under a share purchase agreement.

The court considered whether the dispute fell within arbitration provisions relating to purchase price adjustments and general arbitration clauses.

It held that the contractual adjustment process had already concluded when the parties’ external accountants resolved the working capital dispute.

As no live issue remained for arbitration, and given delay and attornment to the court’s jurisdiction, the court declined to stay the action.

The court confirmed jurisdiction to hear the summary judgment motion regarding the promissory notes.