Donald Erwin Crabbe

In a civil action concerning easements and rights of way over farm properties, the moving party (defendants) brought a motion seeking to prohibit the plaintiff from tendering updated real estate appraisal evidence, to strike a paragraph of an affidavit as hearsay, and to compel the production of accounting records.

The case management judge declined to prohibit the appraisal evidence as the plaintiff confirmed no further report would be delivered, and extended the deadline for responding evidence.

The judge also found it premature to strike the affidavit paragraph, leaving the hearsay issue for trial.

Finally, the judge ordered the plaintiff to produce its balance sheets for 2015-2020, deferring any further production requests.

The moving party (Murphy Trust) sought disclosure of documents from the plaintiff and its affiliated corporation regarding water haulage to a construction site.

The moving party alleged the plaintiff was seeking an easement for improper purposes and thus came to the court with 'dirty hands'.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the moving party's claim that water was taken from the subject properties for a construction project was mere speculation and did not warrant the requested production.

The plaintiff's poultry processing plant was destroyed by fire and was significantly underinsured because the original insurance application understated the building's size.

The plaintiff sued her insurance broker and the insurer.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it, arguing it owed no duty of care to inform the insured or the broker of the size discrepancy it discovered during a subsequent property inspection.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the purpose of the inspection and the parties' reliance required a full trial to determine whether a novel duty of care existed under the Anns/Cooper framework.

The Moving Parties sought costs for a successful motion to appoint an arbitrator.

The Responding Parties opposed the motion and the costs request, arguing for no costs or partial indemnity, citing a "chilling effect." The court found the Moving Parties were entitled to costs as they succeeded on their motion.

While the Moving Parties sought substantial or partial indemnity costs of $23,598.56 or $16,264.97 respectively, the court awarded fixed costs of $8,000 in fees plus disbursements and taxes, totaling $10,637.80, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the circumstances and the conduct of the Responding Parties.

Following a Rule 21.01(1) motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and misappropriation of funds, the court previously struck the claim entirely against one defendant while granting leave to amend as against other moving defendants.

The parties provided costs submissions.

The plaintiff indicated its intention to bring a Rule 59.06 motion seeking reconsideration and leave to amend the pleadings against the defendant whose claim had been struck.

The court held that the differing procedural positions of the defendants could affect the proper assessment of costs and that determining costs immediately risked a potentially inequitable or duplicative award.

The court therefore adjourned the determination of costs until after the anticipated Rule 59.06 motion.

The moving defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike portions of the statement of claim alleging civil conspiracy and knowing receipt.

The plaintiff alleged that certain defendants participated in a scheme involving inflated pricing of asbestos encasement products supplied to a hospital project, resulting in breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties.

The court reviewed the elements required to plead civil conspiracy and knowing receipt and concluded that the pleadings lacked essential factual allegations supporting either cause of action.

The allegations were largely speculative and failed to establish concerted unlawful conduct or knowledge of misappropriated trust funds.

The court struck the impugned pleadings, granted leave to amend for most defendants, and struck the claim entirely against one defendant without leave to amend.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent employee was constructively dismissed and awarding her damages.

The respondent, a director, had refused to accept a corporate restructuring that required her to report to a newly appointed assistant vice-president rather than the senior vice-president.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in construing the altered reporting obligation as a transfer of responsibility.

Applying an objective test, the court found that the structural change did not constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract, and therefore, there was no constructive dismissal.