Douglas G. Edward

This addendum addresses the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, which was not formally decided in the court's prior reasons.

The plaintiffs sought the return of a $50,000 deposit for a property purchase, arguing the agreement was invalid due to technicalities, including a lack of initials on an amendment, an uncrossed-out irrevocability clause, and incomplete written terms.

The court rejected these technical arguments, affirming that contract formation relies on an objective test of whether parties reached a meeting of the minds, considering both words and conduct, rather than strict adherence to formalities.

However, due to factual ambiguities and credibility issues arising from conflicting affidavits regarding whether an agreement was reached and the role of a key individual, the court determined that the issues were more properly resolved at trial.

Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim for breach of contract arising from an aborted real estate transaction.

The plaintiffs had sued for the return of their deposit, arguing the agreement of purchase and sale was never finalized because the defendant failed to initial changes regarding chattels.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that conflicting affidavit evidence regarding whether the plaintiffs were informed of the acceptance and whether there was a true meeting of the minds created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction for spanking his four-year-old daughter, which caused serious bruising.

He argued the trial judge erred by inferring causation without expert evidence and by rejecting his defence under s. 43 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that expert evidence was not required to establish causation and that the trial judge reasonably concluded the force used exceeded what was reasonable under the circumstances.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs the right to amend their statement of claim to add parties.

The defendants argued that the amendment should have been prohibited due to an expired limitation period and a failure to plead discoverability.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision on a matter of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion regarding the disputed discoverability evidence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents based on the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued that a $5,000 cash payment from the respondents extended the limitation period, a claim the respondents denied.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge properly refused an adjournment, he failed to resolve the material contradictions in the evidence regarding the alleged payment.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.