Eric Fournie

The plaintiffs claimed trespass and unjust enrichment over an historic laneway due to the defendants' encroachments (loading ramp, sign box, HVAC system).

The defendants challenged the plaintiffs' title, arguing it was flawed or the laneway was public.

The court found the plaintiffs had sufficient possessory title, rejecting the defendants' arguments based on *jus tertii*, defective transfers, and public lane status.

The court found the defendants liable for trespass and unjustly enriched, awarding damages based on a reconstructed encroachment fee.

A mandatory order for removal of encroachments was deemed premature, leaving open options for modification or renewed agreement.

The plaintiff, a former Olympic alpine skier, brought a motion for summary judgment against her former tax lawyer and his firm for professional negligence.

The defendants had advised the plaintiff to participate in an aggressive offshore tax plan to wind up her amateur athletic trust, which the Canada Revenue Agency later deemed a sham.

The Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn the plaintiff of the significant legal risks associated with the plan.

The court held that expert evidence was not required to establish the standard of care because the duty to warn was clear, and directed that the issue of damages proceed to trial.

The plaintiff, Rockface Capital Advisors Ltd., brought a summary judgment motion against the defendant, Mountain Province Diamonds Inc., seeking US$126,500 plus interest and costs for services rendered under a debt consultant contract.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a contract clause defining the "Success Fee" as 0.25% of the "principal debt," with specific exclusions for accrued interest and capitalized financing fees.

Rockface argued for the full loan facility amount, while Mountain Province contended that certain fees and interest should be deducted.

The court found the contract language clear, supporting Mountain Province's interpretation, and dismissed the summary judgment motion.

A joint venture partner sought disclosure of detailed payroll and employment records of the other partner’s employees working on a diamond mine project in order to audit joint venture expenditures.

The respondent refused, arguing disclosure would contravene the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) without employee consent.

The court held that while the applicant had a contractual right to audit and the information sought constituted personal information under PIPEDA, disclosure without employee consent would violate the statute absent a statutory exception.

Section 7(3)(c) of PIPEDA does not create a free‑standing jurisdiction for courts to order disclosure; rather, it applies only after an independent court order requiring production exists.

Because no such jurisdictional basis had been invoked, the application was dismissed without prejudice to renewal.

Following a nine‑day trial concerning a commercial tenancy dispute and a counterclaim for damages arising from the landlord’s termination of the tenancy and demolition of the building, the successful tenant sought costs exceeding $185,000.

The landlord argued it should instead receive costs or that no costs be awarded, citing the tenant’s failure to pay rent as ordered, allegations of perjury, and late disclosure of evidence.

The court held that the general principle that costs follow the event applied, as none of the landlord’s objections justified departing from that rule.

However, the court found the tenant’s litigation tactics—particularly its refusal to pay rent despite opportunities to resolve the dispute and regain the premises—warranted a reduction in the costs claimed.

Costs were therefore reduced by approximately one‑third.

A commercial landlord‑tenant dispute arose after the landlord halted renovations at nightclub premises and later began demolition while litigation over an alleged lease breach was pending.

Earlier proceedings determined the tenant had not breached the lease and that the landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to an assignment.

At this damages trial, the court considered whether the landlord was liable for losses during a seven‑month delay period and whether demolition prior to termination established liability for the remainder of the lease term.

The court found the landlord wrongfully expelled the tenant and commenced demolition before termination, thereby destroying the leased premises.

Damages were awarded for the seven‑month period and for the balance of the lease term, but the court declined to award damages for equipment loss due to insufficient proof and the tenant’s failure to mitigate.