Erroll Treslan

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for $120,000 owing on a promissory note signed in connection with the defendant's purchase of a family restaurant business.

The defendant argued the note was unenforceable due to undue influence, lack of consideration, and mistake, and counterclaimed for the return of payments already made.

The court found the defendant's evidence unreliable and accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that the note represented the assumption of an antecedent debt owed by the previous owner.

The court held there was no undue influence, valuable consideration existed, and there was no mistake.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $120,000 plus prejudgment interest, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued for slander after the defendant publicly alleged at a chamber of commerce meeting that the plaintiff was receiving a $50-per-keg kick-back from a beer supplier connected to local events.

The court found the statement was a factual accusation, was false, and was defamatory because it implied dishonest or quasi‑criminal conduct affecting the plaintiff’s professional reputation.

Defences of justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, and responsible communication were rejected, as the allegation was made recklessly without verification.

Although the plaintiff proved no economic loss, the court found reputational harm in the small community and awarded general damages.

A third‑party claim for contribution and indemnity against the beer company was dismissed because the alleged information source never made the statements attributed to him.

Following a family law trial addressing child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and property-related issues, the court determined costs between the parties.

Although the applicant obtained a result exceeding the respondent’s final settlement offer, her own settlement offers were found unreasonable and several significant issues at trial were decided against her.

The court also considered disclosure difficulties caused by the respondent and the respondent’s submission of an altered contract, which increased mistrust and litigation complexity.

Balancing these factors, the court declined substantial indemnity costs but awarded reduced partial indemnity costs.

Pre-trial costs were allowed as claimed, while trial costs were reduced to reflect the applicant’s limited success on certain issues.