Gillian Mary Amanda Dinning

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien and sued the defendant homeowner for the unpaid balance of a home renovation project.

The defendant counterclaimed for deficient and incomplete work, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the job.

The court found that the parties had an oral contract based on unit prices and that the defendant committed an anticipatory breach by refusing to pay the full price for the expanded scope of work.

Relying on the defendant's expert's valuation, the court awarded the plaintiff $14,365.73 for the value of work completed, extras, and disbursements, less payments already made.

The accused applied for a declaration that he was unfit to stand trial on three counts of dangerous driving causing death following a high-speed motor vehicle accident that resulted in the deaths of three passengers and caused him a traumatic brain injury.

The defence relied on expert evidence asserting that the accused suffered from frontal lobe dementia and severe cognitive impairment rendering him unable to participate meaningfully in the trial process.

Crown experts concluded that the accused retained sufficient cognitive capacity and that test results suggested malingering.

Applying the “limited cognitive capacity” test from R. v. Taylor, as affirmed in R. v. Whittle and R. v. Morrissey, the court held that the defence failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused was unfit.

The presumption of fitness therefore remained and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement arising from a commercial dispute between advertising companies.

The respondent argued that no binding settlement existed because minutes of settlement were never executed and it had only agreed to certain terms of the proposal.

The court held that a binding settlement arises where parties agree on essential terms and demonstrate mutual intention to create legal relations, even if final documentation has not been signed.

The exchange of communications between counsel constituted a clear offer and acceptance of settlement terms.

The application was granted and the respondent was ordered to execute the agreed Minutes of Settlement and Release.