Gordon 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 appellant appealed the assessments for the Geiger Drain under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellant also brought a motion for an extension of time to file an appeal under section 48, which the Tribunal denied.

On the merits of the section 54 appeal, the Tribunal found that the majority of the engineer's assessments were fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal reduced the benefit assessment for Lot 5 regarding an engineered berm, finding no significant soil erosion to justify the specific benefit, and reduced the assessment for Branch C, finding the allowances should not have factored into the assessment calculations.

The appeal was allowed in part.

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.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order setting out the rules and requirements for an upcoming video conference hearing via Zoom.

The order details the obligations of the parties regarding witness participation, document disclosure, and technical requirements for the electronic hearing.

The Board issued a procedural order adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party to the application.

Pursuant to subsection 9.1(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board also ordered that the application be heard at the same time as nine other related applications brought by various greenhouse farms against the Municipality of Leamington.

Following a trial on child and spousal support, the respondent sought to re-argue the applicant's entitlement to spousal support.

The court dismissed this as an abuse of process, finding no evidentiary basis to infer post-separation income increases.

On the issue of costs, the court found that the respondent conducted the eight-year litigation in bad faith by failing to disclose relevant documents, stonewalling the income valuation process, and habitually breaching court orders.

The court awarded the applicant costs of $193,000 on a full recovery basis under Family Law Rule 24(8).

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order on consent adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party.

The Board also ordered that the applicant's case be heard at the same time as eight other related applications against the Municipality of Leamington, and set out a schedule for the hearing, disclosure, and procedural planning.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board issued a procedural order on consent adding the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a Third Party to the application.

The Board also ordered that the application be heard at the same time as eight other related applications challenging a municipal by-law of the Municipality of Leamington, and set out a schedule for the joint hearing, disclosure, and procedural planning.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers be added as a Third Party.

The Board also ordered on consent that the application be heard at the same time as six other related applications against the Municipality of Leamington concerning By-law Number 79-20.

Hearing dates were scheduled and procedural directions were given for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an application by AMCO Farms Inc. challenging a municipal by-law under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that this application be heard at the same time as six other applications challenging the same by-law.

The Board set hearing dates and directed the parties to develop plans for disclosure and the presentation of evidence.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board ordered on consent that seven applications challenging the Municipality of Leamington's By-law Number 79-20 be heard at the same time.

The Board also added the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers as a third party to the proceedings on consent and set out a schedule for the joint hearing.