D. Gordon Bent

The defendant tenant and guarantor brought a motion to stay the plaintiff landlord's action for rent arrears in favour of arbitration, relying on the arbitration clause in their commercial lease.

The landlord opposed the stay, arguing the matter was a proper one for summary judgment under section 7(2)(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court dismissed the motion to stay, finding that the tenant's proposed defences regarding additional rent and mitigation did not raise genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court allowed the litigation to proceed and awarded the landlord $5,000 in full indemnity costs.

The defendant insurance broker brought a motion to amend its statement of defence and crossclaim in an action arising from a fire loss where the plaintiff alleged inadequate insurance coverage.

The plaintiff opposed the amendments, arguing they improperly pleaded evidence and argument rather than material facts, contrary to Rule 25.06.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments, which detailed construction costs, statements made in meetings, and gross receipts, were relevant to the broker's causation defence and did not clearly offend the rules of pleading.

The moving party sought a determination on whether a handwritten note by the deceased constituted a valid holograph codicil.

The deceased had previously executed a will dividing his estate equally among his three children and transferred his cottage to two of them in joint tenancy.

The handwritten note expressed an intention to provide the third child with a cash equivalent from the estate to compensate for her exclusion from the cottage property.

The court found the note demonstrated a deliberate and final testamentary intention and declared it a valid holograph codicil.

The plaintiffs sought specific performance of an alleged oral right of first refusal for a 123-acre property, or alternatively, specific performance of a written agreement of purchase and sale for a 10-15 acre severed parcel.

The court found no oral agreement existed for the right of first refusal, and even if it did, it was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as the plaintiff's property maintenance did not constitute part performance.

The court also declined to order specific performance of the written agreement because expert evidence established that obtaining the necessary land severance was highly improbable.

The plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim to validate the transfer and remove certificates of pending litigation was granted.