J. Douglas Skinner

The appellants, comprising an individual and two corporations, appealed a lower court decision that dismissed their application for specific performance.

They sought to compel the respondent, a separated spouse, to execute a Non-Solicitation and Non-Competition Agreement (NCA) as part of a corporate share sale.

The application judge found no evidence that the respondent had agreed to the NCA.

The respondent cross-appealed the costs award from the lower court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's finding regarding the NCA.

Leave to cross-appeal costs was denied, as the appellate court found the original costs award to be reasonable despite a potential misdirection by the application judge.

The trustees of the estate of Anne Emily Janicek brought an application for advice and directions regarding the construction of the will's provisions concerning the sale of the "Home Farm." The will provided that the farm could be purchased by any of the testatrix's children, or a combination thereof, at 75% of appraised fair market value within one year of death, with an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to be concluded within that period.

If no such agreement was reached, the trustees could sell the farm at their discretion.

The trustees received competing individual offers from four children within the prescribed period but were uncertain which to accept and sought court guidance.

The application judge ordered that the trustees could sell the farm to whomever they chose at any price in their sole discretion.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding the will did not require the trustees to sell to him and that the trustees had acted appropriately.

Justice van Rensburg dissented, finding the application judge erred by failing to address whether the trustees had frustrated the appellant's purchase attempt and by failing to apply principles of will interpretation to determine the testatrix's intention regarding competing offers.

The applicant estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the family law proceeding for delay.

The respondent surviving spouse brought a cross-motion to suspend the administration of the estate to preserve assets for a potential equalization payment.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial of an issue, finding the motion straightforward.

The court dismissed the motion for delay, noting that both parties contributed to the delay and there was no substantial risk to a fair trial.

The court granted the respondent's motion, ordering the estate to retain $2.2 million to secure her potential equalization claim, which included a potential interest in a $6.6 million settlement from a Florida lawsuit.

On an application to pass estate accounts for the period when Marian Barltrop acted as guardian of property for Ethel Baker, the court considered extensive objections from Robert Baker concerning alleged deficiencies, overpayments, and reimbursements.

The court found the records were complete, accepted that identified duplicate and overpayments were bookkeeping errors rather than fiduciary breaches, and reduced compensation for those specific amounts.

The court held that challenged reimbursements, including care-related payments, legal and travel expenses, and other administration costs, were reasonably incurred for Ethel Baker’s benefit in the circumstances.

The accounts were passed, with a limited adjustment to compensation and a timetable set for costs submissions.

The appellant defaulted on a loan from a business associate, who subsequently assigned the debt to the respondent.

The respondent successfully sued the appellant for the balance of the loan.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the loan agreement was unenforceable due to the law against champerty and maintenance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assignment of a debt is not a champertous transaction and is valid under section 53 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing a guarantee, arguing he was coerced into giving the guarantee by physical threats.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence, consisting of a letter and a discovery transcript passage, did not support a finding of physical threats.

The court upheld the motion judge's conclusion that there was no triable issue on the defence of economic duress and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's finding that the respondent was forced to withdraw from their partnership, constituting a de facto expulsion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's interpretation of the partnership agreement, finding that Articles 3.5 and 8.1 required payment of the Schedule 'A' price to the departing partner upon involuntary withdrawal or expulsion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.