Donald F. Morris

The defendants brought motions for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that dismissed their Rule 21 motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs, including a former RCMP member, claimed damages for harassment, assault, and sexual assault.

The defendants argued the claims were barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act because the plaintiff received a pension for PTSD.

The court refused leave to appeal, finding no conflicting case law on the principles for striking pleadings and no good reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that it was not plain and obvious the entire claim was barred.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2013 order granting sole custody to the respondent mother and setting child support based on an imputed income of $38,400.

The father sought to reduce ongoing support and arrears, claiming he earned significantly less.

The court imputed an income of $18,000 for 2012-2013 and minimum wage ($22,230) for 2014-2016, recalculating the arrears to $8,680 and setting ongoing support at $178 per month.

Following prior reasons for judgment on a summary judgment motion limited to the issue of possession, the court convened to settle the form of order and address case management issues.

The court clarified that the plaintiff’s claim relating to contaminated soil and debris had not been dismissed and ordered that the reference in the draft order suggesting otherwise be deleted.

The plaintiff was directed to serve an amended statement of claim clearly articulating the causes of action, material facts, and relief sought against each defendant, with corresponding timelines for amended defences and related pleadings.

The court also scheduled completion of remaining discoveries, struck the jury notice by consent, adjourned the previously scheduled trial date, and set a new trial date.

A mortgagee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a writ of possession of a farm property following the mortgagor’s default under a second mortgage.

The mortgagor opposed the motion, asserting equitable set‑off based on alleged misrepresentations regarding a wood furnace and environmental contamination on the property.

The court held that the mortgagor failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the contamination claim or establish a triable issue preventing possession.

However, the court found the furnace claim had potential merit and structured an interim remedy allowing the mortgagor time to pay part of the mortgage principal to delay enforcement pending trial.

Conditional orders were issued governing possession, payment into court, and scheduling of discoveries and trial.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached a fiduciary duty to a joint venture corporation.

The appellants managed a real estate development for the joint venture and allowed the property to go into power of sale, subsequently purchasing it for themselves.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a fiduciary relationship existed and that the appellants breached their duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the imposition of a constructive trust was affirmed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application to set aside a default judgment for fraud in the amount of $143,462.06.

They argued the amount was not a liquidated sum under Rule 19.04(1)(a) and raised issues regarding service of the statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the amount was supported by a detailed schedule of invoices, service was proper, and the motion judge committed no error in principle in refusing to set aside the default judgment.