David Vaillancourt

The plaintiff corporation, facing severe financial difficulties and mortgage default, sold a 75-acre property to the defendant developer in a 'no cash' deal, taking back mortgages on two other properties owned by the developer.

The plaintiff subsequently defaulted on loans secured by those mortgages and lost the properties.

The plaintiff sued the developer for fraud, conspiracy, and misrepresentation, alleging the developer inflated the values of the mortgaged properties.

The plaintiff also sued its real estate lawyer for professional negligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed all claims, finding no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, and concluding that the lawyer met the standard of care given the plaintiff's dire financial situation and complete lack of bargaining power.

In a securities class action arising from the collapse of a forestry company, the plaintiffs sought approximately $2.6 million in costs following certification and leave motions brought under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act.

Several defendants argued that costs should not be awarded because the plaintiffs had already recovered legal expenses through settlements with other defendants and because the claimed costs were excessive.

The court held that the plaintiffs were largely successful but not entirely successful due to an unresolved assignment issue affecting certain class members.

The court also ruled that disbursements could not be recovered again because they had already been indemnified through settlements.

Exercising its discretion, the court ordered a hybrid costs award: part payable immediately and part payable in the cause.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims regarding intellectual property rights in software, arguing the claims were barred by a quitclaim agreement and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant credibility issues existed regarding the execution and knowledge of the quitclaim, as well as the discoverability of the claim, which could not be resolved fairly using the enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial in the normal course.