Glenroy K. Bastien

The plaintiff acted as an agent in Korea for the defendant.

After their relationship deteriorated, the parties signed a Payment Agreement acknowledging outstanding commissions owed to the plaintiff.

The defendant partially paid but then ceased payments.

The plaintiff sued for the remaining balance.

The court found the Payment Agreement to be a binding contract and awarded the plaintiff USD $232,330.44.

The defendant's counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty was dismissed due to a lack of evidence of damages.

The court limited pre-judgment interest to three years due to the plaintiff's unreasonable delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The defendant lawyer moved to strike the plaintiff's professional negligence claim.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyer was negligent in a prior unsuccessful lawsuit against a bank for failing to adduce expert evidence on the duty of care.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the prior courts had definitively ruled the bank owed no duty of care based on the contract, making the negligence claim an improper collateral attack on those decisions.

The claim was struck with leave to amend to plead claims not predicated on the prior decisions being incorrect.

The plaintiff brought an action in negligence, nuisance, and trespass against her neighbours and the City of Vaughan, alleging that construction activities on the neighbours' property altered the grading and caused water to flow onto her property, resulting in damages.

The claims against the municipal defendants were settled during trial.

The court dismissed the remaining claims against the neighbour, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

Expert evidence established that the water problems were actually caused by the plaintiff's own landscapers, who had flattened the common swale and altered the grading on her property, preventing proper drainage.

The court found no negligence or unreasonable interference by the neighbour.

The applicant soccer clubs sought judicial review of decisions by the respondent soccer associations denying the transfer of three competitive youth soccer teams from a financially troubled club.

The court held a trial of an issue to determine if the respondents had promised the transfers would be approved, and also considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the decisions.

The court declined jurisdiction, finding the respondents were voluntary associations making operational policy decisions that did not prevent any individual from playing soccer, but merely affected team composition.

Furthermore, the court found on the evidence that the respondents never represented that the transfers would be approved.

The application was dismissed.