Derek E. Zulianello

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a previous order that struck his statement of claim as an abuse of process.

The court noted that the plaintiff had already appealed the previous order to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal for delay and found the action devoid of merit.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the order, finding it to be yet another attempt to circumvent a court order and an abuse of process.

Full indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim on the grounds that it was an abuse of process and statute-barred.

The plaintiff requested an adjournment, which was denied due to his failure to comply with prior court orders regarding the filing of materials.

The court found that the action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period and that it improperly duplicated claims that had already been struck in a parallel proceeding.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and full indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

A dispute arose between brothers over long-term use of a family recreational property after the owner indicated an intention to sell despite earlier assurances that the property would be left to the claimant in a will.

The claimant had occupied the property for decades and made improvements, relying on those assurances.

The court found the elements of proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment established because the claimant acted to his detriment in reliance on the owner’s representations.

However, the court concluded that a proprietary remedy was unnecessary because the improvements were largely removable.

The appropriate remedy was monetary compensation and reimbursement for certain expenditures, with removal costs of the claimant’s structures to be paid by the owner.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, inducing breach of contract, intentional interference with economic relations, and claims for aggravated and punitive damages arising from a failed joint venture concerning a key‑cutting machine.

Applying the “plain and obvious” test from Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., the court held that the pleadings sufficiently disclosed causes of action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and inducement of breach of contract.

However, the claims for intentional interference with economic relations and interference with prospective economic relations were struck as they lacked the necessary allegations that a third party had an actionable claim against the defendant.

Claims for aggravated and punitive damages were also struck for lack of particularization but with leave to amend.

Certain evidentiary paragraphs were struck for breaching pleading rules.

The defendant First Nation brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff’s statement of claim under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff alleged defamation arising from a Band Council Resolution declaring her a trespasser on First Nation territory after her employment termination, claiming reputational and financial harm.

The defendant argued the claim was barred by res judicata and abuse of process because the plaintiff had previously obtained damages for wrongful dismissal in Small Claims Court.

The court held the earlier proceeding concerned a contractual wrongful dismissal claim, while the present action alleged a tort of defamation that arose later and constituted a continuing cause of action.

The motion to strike under Rule 21 was dismissed, though certain pleadings and evidentiary attachments were struck under Rule 25 with leave to amend.

A commercial tenant sought a declaration that its lease had been validly renewed for an additional five‑year term and alternatively requested relief from forfeiture under s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The court held that the renewal clause, as amended, was unenforceable because it required rent to be determined by future agreement without providing a mechanism such as arbitration, making it an agreement to agree.

The tenant also failed to satisfy the conditions precedent for renewal, including timely written notice and compliance with lease obligations.

The court further found that s. 20 of the Commercial Tenancies Act did not apply where the landlord was not seeking re‑entry during the existing term, and equitable relief was unavailable because the tenant sought to obtain a new right rather than preserve an existing one.

Waiver and estoppel arguments were rejected, particularly given a non‑waiver clause and the involvement of third‑party leasing arrangements.