Dennis Van Sickle

The plaintiffs sued for unpaid amounts arising from an oral cottage renovation arrangement, asserting a substantial balance plus interest and non-pecuniary damages.

The court found the agreement was not a flat-price contract but an unsubstantiated time-and-materials arrangement, and fixed compensation on a quantum meruit basis.

Expert evidence established overbilling, deficient workmanship, and improper electrical and plumbing work by an unlicensed contractor.

Having concluded the plaintiffs had already been overpaid and were not entitled to interest or general damages, the court dismissed the action.

This was a costs endorsement following an earlier ruling in an estate matter.

After receiving further costs submissions, the court fixed the applicant's costs at $10,919.75 payable from the estate and the respondents' costs at $6,466.37 also payable from the estate.

A draft order could be forwarded for signature.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside or vary a prior consent order requiring her to vacate a property by a specified date.

She argued the responding parties had failed to comply with disclosure obligations, that the consent order should be interpreted alongside earlier family law orders, and that circumstances had materially changed.

The court reviewed the principles governing the finality of settlements and consent judgments and held that such orders may only be set aside for limited grounds such as fraud, misrepresentation, common mistake, or a material change in circumstances.

The evidence did not establish any of these grounds.

The court concluded the consent order was clear, voluntarily agreed to after negotiations, and remained binding.

The appellant, an unsecured business creditor, sought a constructive trust over funds held by the Receiver of a bankrupt company, arguing the bankrupt was unjustly enriched by the unauthorized sale of the appellant's shipping containers.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding no direct connection between the proceeds of the sales and the funds held by the Receiver.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal for the majority of the funds, confirming that a constructive trust requires a direct link between the property and the unjust enrichment.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, imposing a constructive trust over $27,244 that was directly traceable to the unauthorized sale of five containers shortly before the receivership.

The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction enforcing restrictive covenants in a license agreement with a former licensee operating a mobile sign business.

After the agreement expired, the former licensee allegedly solicited customers and attempted to continue operating under a competing company within the restricted geographic area.

Applying the test from RJR‑MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, the court found a strong prima facie case that the restrictive covenant was enforceable and had been breached.

The court also found that the diversion of customers and misuse of the plaintiff’s trade name would cause irreparable harm to goodwill and business relations, and that the balance of convenience favoured protection of the plaintiff’s business.

An interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from operating a competing mobile sign business within the restricted area and from soliciting the plaintiff’s customers pending further review.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence and counterclaim for persistently failing to satisfy undertakings given on an examination for discovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's discretionary order was entitled to deference and was supported by the record, which showed the appellant failed to fully answer undertakings despite four court-ordered timetables in a case involving allegations of fraud.

The appellant appealed an order under The Hague Convention requiring a child to be returned to Australia so Australian courts could assume jurisdiction over custody and access.

The trial judge found the child was habitually resident in Australia based on the appellant's declarations and actions indicating a settled intention to stay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the trial judge correctly applied the jurisprudence and that the evidence fully supported the habitual residence finding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant moved for substantial indemnity costs and an order prohibiting the respondent from filing responding material after the respondent's cheques for costs, payable as a condition of an adjournment, were returned for insufficient funds.

The respondent's counsel had promptly replaced the cheques with a firm trust cheque once notified.

The court awarded $200 in costs for the inconvenience of the dishonoured cheques but dismissed the request to prohibit responding materials as premature.

The court noted the escalation of costs was due to a lack of professional courtesy and communication between counsel.