Jared C. Wortzman

The court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase a supermarket business, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts showing acceptance of the agreement, lacked standing, and that the alleged agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Leave to amend was granted only to clarify standing for a claim for return of deposit.

This endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses a request for directions regarding its prior decision.

The respondent sought clarification, arguing the previous decision might have inadvertently set aside parts of the application judge's order that were not appealed or were abandoned.

The court clarified that its decision to set aside the application judge's order was due to identified errors affecting lien rights and PPSA registration.

It affirmed that the appellants (respondents in this endorsement) did not abandon any relief sought in their notice of appeal and factum, including payment for storage/rental costs intertwined with repairs.

The court confirmed the appellants' possessory lien over the aircraft, encompassing both repair and storage/rental costs, and remitted these intertwined issues to the Superior Court for determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously allowed the appeal, set aside the application judge’s order, and remitted certain issues for trial, declaring that the appellants had a possessory lien.

The appellants, having prevailed on the appeal and related motions, were awarded all-inclusive costs for the appeal, a panel motion, three pre-appeal motions, and the original application, totaling $143,977.79.

The appellants appealed an order vacating their possessory lien on an aircraft under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The application judge had erred by vacating the lien without fully determining whether the repair work was authorized and if any amounts were owing, despite acknowledging that litigation on these issues was possible.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge failed to make necessary findings and improperly applied the RSLA.

The appeal was allowed, the original order set aside, and the appellants' possessory lien was declared to exist until further court order, with the issues of authorization and amounts owing remitted to trial.