J. Kuredjian

The moving parties (the Innes Parties) brought a motion for summary judgment in two related actions arising from a share purchase agreement for a quarry business.

The responding parties (the Guido Parties) defaulted on payments under a promissory note and failed to assume mortgages as agreed, but argued they were induced into the agreement by misrepresentations regarding the quarry licence, the standing of the mortgages, and the condition of equipment.

The court found no genuine issues for trial, concluding that no misrepresentations were made and that the entire agreement clause precluded the pre-contractual representations alleged.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Innes Parties for $1,477,200, plus a declaration for indemnity regarding the mortgages.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action, the third party actions, and all counterclaims and crossclaims arising from a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal of their action.

A third party opposed the dismissal of her counterclaim and crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court held that because the main action was being dismissed, the third party's claims for contribution and indemnity had no basis in law and could not survive.

The motions were granted and all claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action brought a motion to compel a statutory third party insurer to answer questions refused at an examination for discovery.

The questions related to the insurer's investigation and reasons for denying coverage to the defendant.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 31.06(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an insurer must disclose the reasons for its denial of coverage but is not required to disclose the details of the investigation that led to that decision.