Jack Masterman

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The appellants argued that the agreement never became binding because the respondent accepted an extension offer one day late.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellants elected to treat the contract as ongoing by subsequently waiving conditions, paying a second deposit, and engaging in conduct consistent with a binding agreement.

The expectation damages award of $142,757.89 was upheld.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action regarding a collapsed hog barn, arguing it was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was tolled due to the defendants' wilful concealment of construction deficiencies.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the fraudulent concealment exception for the corporate defendants and dismissed their motion.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the individual engineer defendants, finding they were protected by a limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract.

The plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion for $242,546.99 USD owed for shipments of corn, plus interest, and sought to enforce a personal guarantee against the individual defendant.

The corporate defendant admitted owing money but disputed the exact amount and interest charges, while the individual defendant disputed the validity and scope of the personal guarantee.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the evidence clearly established the debt, the contractual interest rate, and the unlimited scope of the personal guarantee.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence in an action for a construction debt and breach of trust.

The defendants failed to produce a proper affidavit of documents, failed to attend scheduled examinations for discovery, and offered no credible commitment to remedy their non-compliance over the course of a year.

Applying the principles from Falcon Lumber, the court found the defendants' non-compliance to be deliberate, material, and unequivocal.

The court exercised its discretion to strike the statement of defence and awarded the plaintiff costs thrown away.

Following an appeal of an arbitration award where success was divided, the appellants sought costs of $24,322.76.

The respondents argued that each party should bear their own costs or, alternatively, costs should be fixed at $3,500.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Finding that the appellants were successful in having the arbitrator's reasons deemed inadequate on one issue, while the respondents were successful in having the matter remitted to the original arbitrator, the court concluded that success was divided and made no order as to costs.

The appellants sought leave to appeal an arbitration award arising from the termination of a medical practice business relationship.

The arbitrator had awarded the respondents $946,071, which included a refund of overhead expenses and 'Special Expenses' deducted by the appellants.

The court found that the parties had not contracted out of the right to appeal under s. 45 of the Arbitration Act.

Leave to appeal was granted because the adequacy of the arbitrator's reasons constituted a question of law.

The court held that the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate regarding the Special Expenses, as they failed to explain why the appellants were ordered to repay those amounts.

The court varied the award to order repayment of a 5% overhead increase and remitted the Special Expenses issue back to the original arbitrator for determination.

The defendant brought a motion to remove Siskinds LLP as counsel of record for the plaintiffs, citing conflict of interest and 'lawyer as witness' concerns.

The dispute involved an internal corporate struggle over share ownership and director status in LEO Canada Inc. Siskinds LLP had acted as corporate counsel during the events giving rise to the dispute and was now acting as litigation counsel for both the corporation and one of the disputing shareholders.

The court found significant conflict of interest concerns, noting that lawyers from the firm were likely to be necessary witnesses regarding the preparation and execution of contested corporate documents.

The court ordered the removal of Siskinds LLP, directed that the corporation and the individual plaintiff obtain separate representation, and established a procedure for documentary disclosure.