G. Edward Oldfield

The plaintiff claimed ownership of either 50% or 33.3% of a meat retail business (Robert's Boxed Meats) operated through a numbered company.

The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement in 1997 whereby he and the defendant would be equal 50% owners, or alternatively, that share purchase and escrow agreements from 1996-1997 preserved a 33.3% interest in the company held in escrow.

The court found no credible evidence of the alleged oral agreement and determined that the plaintiff's alternative claim for 33.3% ownership was statute-barred under the applicable limitations legislation.

The court granted the defendant's counterclaim for delivery of the escrowed shares for cancellation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether comments about future ownership of a family farm gave rise to an enforceable assurance under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The trial judge had awarded damages to Tim Metske and Amanda Herlick on the basis of proprietary estoppel, but the Court of Appeal set aside this finding, holding there was no clear promise or assurance, nor reasonable reliance.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on unjust enrichment and equitable set-off, resulting in a reduced damages award.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, having been entirely successful in the liability phase of a bifurcated proceeding concerning the status of the "Disputed Beach" as reserve land, sought costs.

This endorsement addresses the costs awards and apportionment among the multiple defendants.

The court awarded Saugeen their costs on a partial indemnity scale, totaling $3,221,802.54, on a joint and several liability basis.

These costs were apportioned for indemnification purposes among Canada (10%), Ontario (40%), and the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (50%).

Additionally, the court granted Canada a Sanderson order, requiring the Town to pay Canada $470,000 in partial indemnity costs, recognizing Canada's success on the essential issue of the reserve boundary location.

The Town's claim for costs against Canada was dismissed.

Following a successful motion by the respondent to enforce a settlement regarding farm properties, the respondent and third party sought their costs.

The applicant argued that success was divided and each party should bear their own costs.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful as he obtained the order enforcing the settlement.

Applying the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the respondent and $2,500 to the third party.

The Respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in a family law matter concerning the division of farm properties and assets.

The Applicant argued that no binding agreement existed due to missing essential terms, or alternatively, that the Respondent failed to carry out the terms.

The court found that a binding settlement had been reached, with the parties being ad idem on all essential terms, and that the Respondent had not failed to complete the transaction.

The Respondent's motion to enforce the settlement was granted, with specific modifications to the draft minutes of settlement regarding interest, property transfer to a third party, and a first charge.

This decision provides supplementary reasons for judgment in a land claim case.

Following an earlier declaration that a substantial portion of Sauble Beach was reserved for the sole use and benefit of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and forms part of Saugeen Indian Reserve No. 29, the court considered whether to grant a life interest in certain 'Disputed Lots' to current family title owners (Landowners).

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and Canada opposed this.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to impose a proprietary interest contrary to the Indian Act and Constitution Act, as reserve land is inalienable.

It also found that granting such an interest would not advance reconciliation.

Consequently, the temporary delay in the original declaration that no third parties have an interest in the land was terminated, making the declaration effective immediately.

The Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation brought an action seeking a declaration that a 1.4-mile strip of Sauble Beach (the Disputed Beach) is part of their unsurrendered reserve land under Treaty 72 of 1854.

The court found that the Imperial Crown's surveyor, Charles Rankin, improperly marked the northern terminus of the reserve's eastern boundary further south than the Treaty stipulated, depriving the First Nation of the promised coastline.

The court held that the Imperial Crown and the federal Crown breached their sui generis fiduciary duties and acted inconsistently with the honour of the Crown by failing to properly survey, protect, and preserve the reserve.

The court rejected the defendants' arguments that the First Nation's claim was defeated by Crown patents, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the Limitations Act, laches, dedication, or proprietary estoppel.

The court declared that the Disputed Beach remains unsurrendered reserve land for the sole use and benefit of the First Nation.

The applicant brought a motion for further disclosure, and the respondent Jamie McDonald brought a motion to suspend or vary a previous order directing the sale of four jointly owned farm properties.

The court granted the disclosure requests, ordering both sides to produce specified financial and operational records, noting that while some information should have been sought during earlier questioning, it was necessary for trial preparation.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to vary the sale order, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate an issue he had previously elected not to participate in, and that delaying the sale would be unfair to the applicant.

This endorsement from a trial readiness conference outlines the outstanding issues for the second phase of a bifurcated trial.

The court clarified that a previous 2021 valuation of the home farm was for settlement purposes only and would not govern compensation, and confirmed that the order refusing the sale of the home farm was a final order not to be re-litigated.

The endorsement also set deadlines for disclosure and undertakings motions, identified remaining trial issues including valuation of farm equipment, equalization, support claims, and trust claims, and scheduled further conferences and trial dates.

This motion concerned the sale of five jointly owned farm properties following a marital breakdown.

The applicant sought an order for sale, while the respondents argued that section 11 of the Family Law Act prohibited such a sale for an operating farm.

The court determined that section 11 of the Family Law Act applies to jointly owned farms and that the "home farm" was indispensable to the operation and should not be sold.

However, the court found that the other jointly owned properties could be sold without seriously impairing the farm's operation, and that reasonable alternative methods existed to satisfy any equalization award.

This decision details the findings from the first portion of a bifurcated trial in divorce proceedings, primarily addressing the valuation of farm properties and farm equipment.

The court also considered the applicant's motion for partition and sale of jointly owned properties.

The judgment provides detailed analysis of expert appraisal methodologies, including fair market value, depreciation, comparable sales, and the influence of factors like drainage and solar panels on property values.

The court made specific findings on the values of seven farm properties and various pieces of equipment as of the marriage, separation, and trial dates.

The decision on the motion for partition and sale was reserved, pending further submissions from the parties regarding the impact of a recent case.

Appeal of a trial judgment in a property dispute between cottage owners.

The trial court found that the appellants had trespassed on the respondent's water lot and issued a permanent injunction restraining them from entering the dry land portion.

The appellants' counterclaim for an easement was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellants raised new arguments regarding riparian rights, accretion, and the high water mark, which had not been argued at trial.

The appellants also challenged the sufficiency of the trial judge's reasons and sought to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants were attempting to fundamentally alter their case post-trial and that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient.

The defendants were successful in having the plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck without leave to amend.

The two groups of defendants sought costs totaling over $41,000.

The court found that the plaintiff could not reasonably have anticipated such a high costs award at the pleadings stage.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no conduct by the plaintiff to justify it.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $10,000 for each group of defendants, for a total of $20,000.

The Superior Court of Justice rendered a decision on costs following a trial where the plaintiff, Huron Bay Co-operative Inc. (HBC), obtained judgment against Mar-Bo Farms Inc. but had its claim dismissed against individual defendants Andrew Philip Needham and Michael Robert Needham.

The court considered the defendants' non-Rule 49 offer to settle, which mirrored the trial's outcome regarding the individual defendants' liability.

The plaintiff sought a Sanderson order, requiring Mar-Bo to pay the individual defendants' costs, which was denied.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,600.00 to Andrew and Michael Needham, payable by HBC, reducing the requested amount by 50% due to the individual defendants' "unclean hands" and their weak set-off claims that prolonged the trial.

Two brothers disputed the ownership of a family farm corporation following the deaths of their parents.

The applicant, Barry Reid, sought to enforce a purported 1991 holograph will that he discovered in 1999, which allegedly left the farm shares to him.

The respondent, Robert Reid, argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court held that the exceptions under section 43(2) of the former Limitations Act for trust property retained or converted by a trustee did not apply, as the mother had taken the shares personally as the rightful beneficiary under a 1984 will.

Consequently, the six-year limitation period applied and expired in 2005, rendering the 2012 application statute-barred.

Two brothers disputed the ownership of a family farm corporation following the deaths of their parents.

The applicant, Barry Reid, sought to enforce a purported 1991 holograph will that he discovered in 1999, which allegedly left the farm shares to him.

The respondent, Robert Reid, argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court held that the exceptions under section 43(2) of the former Limitations Act for trust property retained or converted by a trustee did not apply, as the mother had taken the shares personally as the rightful beneficiary under a 1984 will.

Consequently, the six-year limitation period applied and expired in 2005, rendering the 2012 application statute-barred.

The moving party sought reconsideration of a costs order arising from a garnishment motion related to enforcement of a judgment exceeding $400,000.

The court reviewed its earlier endorsement under Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows amendment of an order containing an accidental slip or omission.

The court found that it had inadvertently failed to address relief sought in an amended notice of motion requiring a numbered corporation and an individual to disgorge funds received from a third party for the judgment debtor’s services.

Concluding the omission resulted from an accidental oversight, the court amended its prior endorsement to require payment of the amounts received, with interest, to the sheriff pursuant to the garnishment.

The motion to set aside the earlier costs order was dismissed.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s nuisance claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff argued that the action constituted a public interest test case and sought an order that no costs be awarded.

The court rejected that characterization, finding the litigation primarily advanced the plaintiff’s private economic interests and did not qualify as public interest litigation warranting relief from the usual costs rule.

Applying the partial indemnity principle and considering the parties’ circumstances and prior offer to settle, the court fixed costs payable by the unsuccessful plaintiff.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant $24,767.02 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, plus HST.

The plaintiff, owner of a farm leased for raising rare breeding turkeys, sued the defendant, who purchased a neighbouring farm to build a commercial poultry barn.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's proposed barn would cause an actionable nuisance due to the risk of airborne pathogens, which prompted the plaintiff's tenant to threaten to terminate its lease.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff's operation was abnormally sensitive and that the defendant's proposed use, which complied with all regulatory requirements, did not constitute an unreasonable interference or actionable nuisance.