James Smith

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of J.P. Thomson Architects Ltd., holding that the application judge erred in interpreting the dispute resolution clause (GC18) in the parties’ contract.

The Court found that GC18 did not require mediation to be sought within 30 days of a dispute arising, but rather set a minimum 30-day period for informal resolution before mediation could be requested.

The Court also held that the application judge erred by making findings about the scope of the parties’ dispute, which should have been left to the arbitrator.

The Court ordered mediation to proceed within 60 days, with the right to seek arbitration preserved.

The appellant sought a declaration of beneficial ownership in a condominium unit, claiming the respondents wrongfully terminated a Reservation Agreement without reasonable notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the reasonable notice argument was not properly raised before the application judge or in the appeal factum.

Furthermore, the court held that the appellant's persistent refusal to complete the purchase and his failure to maintain communication negated any claim of insufficient notice regarding the agreement's termination.

The applicants sought a declaration and mandatory order requiring the respondent minority shareholder to complete a share purchase transaction pursuant to a Shareholders' Agreement.

The respondent argued the applicants repudiated the agreement by failing to comply with the valuation process, specifically by unilaterally appointing real estate appraisers and instructing accountants to alter financial statements to exclude a settlement payment.

The court found the applicants fundamentally breached the agreement's valuation provisions, depriving the respondent of the bargained-for process.

The application was dismissed, allowing the respondent to remain a minority shareholder.

The Defendants brought a motion to set aside a charging order previously granted to their former solicitor, John Gray, over costs owed by the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants alleged fraud and newly discovered facts, claiming Gray wrote off accounts, that funds were not actually held by Plaintiffs' counsel, and that Gray failed to comply with Law Society by-laws.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to substantiate the allegations of fraud or improper conduct by Gray.

The court clarified that accounting practices and Law Society compliance issues were not grounds to set aside the charging order, but rather matters for a costs assessment or the Law Society.

The decision also provided instructions for the delivery of the real estate file and restricted further motions regarding the costs dispute between the Defendants and Mr. Gray without leave of the court.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought imprisonment of three to six months followed by probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months imprisonment to be served in the community, followed by three years probation.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the offence (premeditation, use of a weapon, stabbing the victim in the back) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, compliance with bail conditions, engagement in counselling, and the impact of COVID-19 on custodial conditions).

The court ordered restitution of $1,500 total, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The plaintiffs brought an action for the release of two tranches of escrow funds held pursuant to a share purchase agreement.

The defendant moved to stay the action in favour of arbitration, arguing its claims for equitable set-off fell under the agreement's arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the claim for the first tranche was a proper matter for summary judgment and fell within the statutory exception to mandatory arbitration.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the first tranche, holding that the defendant's unliquidated claims for equitable set-off could not be used to withhold the escrow funds.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the accounting adjustments for the second tranche and ordered a mini-trial.

The applicant provided funds to purchase a condominium but placed the title in the respondent's name to avoid capital gains taxes, based on an oral agreement that the respondent would hold it in trust.

The respondent later claimed he purchased the condominium with his own funds and refused to transfer title.

The court found the applicant's evidence credible and supported by banking records, while the respondent's evidence was contradictory and lacked documentary support.

The court held that a purchase money resulting trust arose, which was not rebutted.

The court also found that the doctrine of part performance applied, overcoming the Statute of Frauds requirement for a written contract.

The court declared the applicant the legal and beneficial owner of the condominium and ordered the respondent to transfer title and pay outstanding amounts.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs of over $117,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The responding party argued the amount was excessive and requested either no costs or a substantially reduced award.

The court held that the successful moving party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed hours, hourly rate, and disbursements to reflect work attributable to former co-defendants and the relative simplicity of the case.

Costs were fixed at a significantly lower amount after recalculating reasonable hours and rates.