Douglas G. Menzies

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his motion to vary a consent divorce order.

The motion judge had ordered the appellant to continue paying $600 per month in spousal support for life, $150 per month for medical coverage until the respondent turned 65, and to maintain $100,000 in life insurance.

The appellant argued that fundamental changes in both parties' financial situations after age 65 warranted a variation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the anticipated changes were uncertain and speculative, and that the current order was fair to both parties.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's decision allowing the respondents' claims for the balance of a vendor take-back loan and wrongful dismissal, and dismissing the appellants' action for breach of contract and fiduciary duty arising from a complex business sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the contractual documents, finding that the non-competition covenant had to be read in conjunction with a mutual undertaking that granted a right of first refusal for distribution contracts.

The Court also agreed that the respondent did not owe a fiduciary duty to the appellants, as the parties were at arm's length and of equal strength.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding liability and damages for property damage, including flower gardens, an excavated area, and a basement wall.

The respondents cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings of fact, liability conclusions, and damages assessment, and no error in principle in the costs award.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $25,000 payable to the respondents.

Following an appeal, both parties made written submissions claiming their costs.

The respondent on appeal was the successful party and was entitled to costs.

The court found no evidence that the respondent conducted the litigation for an improper purpose, noting both parties shared responsibility for failing to settle.

However, the court determined that the respondent's bill of costs far exceeded what an unsuccessful party could reasonably be expected to pay, given the case's lack of complexity and the amounts involved.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $3,000, payable by the appellant.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay the respondent contractor for the installation of a pool enclosure fence.

The appellant argued the contractor was negligent and breached the Sale of Goods Act because the fence did not comply with municipal by-laws requiring a cedar hedge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the contractor did not owe a duty of care regarding by-law compliance, as the appellant chose the fence type and assumed responsibility for permits.

The court also upheld the finding that the Sale of Goods Act was not breached, as there was no defect in title and the fence fulfilled its purpose of enclosing the yard.

The Crown appealed a decision granting the respondents lawful ownership of an island by way of adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's weighing of affidavit evidence or his conclusion that the respondents met the three-pronged test for possessory title.

The Court upheld the finding that the land was not vacant or wasteland, rendering section 16 of the Limitations Act inapplicable.