3 total
The court dismissed claims for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a failed trucking venture.
This case concerned a failed business venture between the plaintiffs (Corridor Transport Inc. and Corridor Transport LP) and the defendants (Vittorio Junior Lentini and LTI Logistics Inc.).
The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging the defendants wrongfully retained $148,967.62.
The court found no enforceable contract due to a lack of meeting of the minds on essential terms, specifically the identity of the contracting parties and the treatment of LTI's accounts receivable.
The court also dismissed the claims for conversion, as the plaintiffs failed to prove a possessory interest in the funds, and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that the alleged fiduciary (Vic Jr.) was not in a position of power or discretion over the plaintiffs, who were not vulnerable.
The action was dismissed in its entirety.
Default judgments for unliquidated damages set aside, but noting in default upheld due to delay.
The defendants brought a motion to set aside default judgments and noting in default.
The court found the default judgments were irregularly obtained because the plaintiff's claim for damages was unliquidated, requiring additional evidence beyond the statement of claim to fix the amount owing.
Consequently, the default judgments were set aside as of right.
However, the court exercised its discretion to decline setting aside the noting in default, citing the defendants' significant responsibility for delay and their "wait and see" approach to the litigation.
The plaintiff was directed to bring a motion for default judgment before a judge.
The court granted partial summary judgment for unpaid construction invoices, rejecting the defendant's equitable set-off defence.
The plaintiff, Bisquip Leasing Corporation (Bishop), brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the defendant, Coco Paving Inc., for outstanding payments for construction services.
Bishop initially claimed $151,350.12, which was reduced to $67,001.39 after a partial payment by Coco.
Coco opposed the motion, arguing for equitable set-off, statutory set-off under the Construction Act, and that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to related counterclaims concerning a deficient sanitary line and liability for a gas line strike.
The court found that the contracts were separate, rejected Coco's equitable set-off defense, and dismissed the counterclaim regarding the sanitary line without prejudice.
The motion for summary judgment was granted for Bishop for $67,001.39, with the court concluding that this would simplify the action and lead to a fair adjudication, despite ongoing related litigation.
