George J. Karayannides

The moving defendants sought judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement allegedly accepted by the self-represented plaintiffs in a long‑running right‑of‑way dispute.

The plaintiffs had emailed questions about the offer and later returned a signed acceptance selecting one of two settlement options concerning the right‑of‑way location.

They later argued no agreement had been reached because their earlier email raised unresolved issues about the road location and user fees.

The court held that the earlier email constituted a request for clarification rather than a counter‑offer and that the signed document and confirming email amounted to unequivocal acceptance within the time limit.

Judgment was granted in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a Florida default judgment in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between Florida, the claim, and the appellant.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to establish defences of fraud or denial of natural justice, and that the Florida judgment was final for enforcement purposes.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought to recognize and enforce two default judgments from a Florida court against the respondent for his role in a complex fraud scheme.

The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Florida court and raised defences of fraud and denial of natural justice.

The court found a real and substantial connection between the respondent and Florida, and rejected the defences.

However, because the respondent had a pending motion in Florida to set aside the judgments, the court recognized the judgments but stayed their enforcement in Ontario pending the outcome of the foreign motion.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that it had repudiated a contract by indicating it would no longer pay the agreed contract price.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual inference that the appellant's conduct, including repeatedly seeking lower quantities and prices, demonstrated an intention not to honour the contract price going forward.

The Court also upheld the finding that the respondent accepted the repudiation by cancelling a shipment and pursuing litigation, and effectively communicated this acceptance.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the respondent was entitled to terminate an agreement of purchase and sale based on an environmental condition.

The condition allowed the respondent to terminate the agreement in its sole and unfettered discretion based on its satisfaction with the property's physical condition.

An environmental assessment revealed soil permeability issues that affected the respondent's plans to develop a scrap metal facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the respondent acted reasonably and in good faith in exercising the termination clause.

The appellant, an informal committee of senior debenture holders, sought leave to appeal orders made by the supervising judge in a CCAA restructuring.

The orders authorized the debtor company to enter into agreements with stakeholders and a finance provider to facilitate a proposed plan of arrangement.

The appellant argued the judge lacked jurisdiction to make orders that entrenched elements of a plan before creditor approval and that the plan was doomed to fail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the supervising judge had broad jurisdiction under s. 11 of the CCAA to move the restructuring process forward, provided the creditors retained their final right to vote on the plan under s. 6.

Following an appeal, the court received written submissions to fix costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants requested no costs be awarded, which the court rejected.

The court reviewed the costs claimed by the respondents—the Interim Receiver, Cominco Ltd., and Yukon Energy Corporation—and found some of the claimed fees to be excessive.

The court fixed the costs for each respondent at reduced amounts, inclusive of disbursements and applicable GST.

The appellants, unsecured creditors, appealed orders sanctioning a plan of arrangement under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and awarding costs against them.

The plan effectively eliminated any recovery for unsecured creditors, as the secured claims (over $60 million) far exceeded the maximum estimated value of the debtor's mining assets ($19.9 million).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's acceptance of the asset valuation or his conclusion that the plan was fair and reasonable.

The Court also upheld the costs award, noting the appellants' opposition lacked a realistic basis.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim arising from the loss of part of a shipment of watches seized by Bahamian authorities after customs documentation was incorrectly completed.

The court held that the respondent carrier had contracted not only to provide customs clearance services but also to deliver the shipment with customs clearance to the consignee's business address.

The consignee's conduct in attempting to obtain customs clearance did not break the chain of responsibility because, for that purpose, it acted as the carrier's agent.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was directed for the full claim together with pre-judgment interest and costs.