John Charles Longworth Ritchie

The court considered motions for security for costs and for summary judgment regarding a possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Lien Act (RSLA) in a dispute over helicopter repairs.

Mansfield Heliflight Inc. sought security for costs from USCAN Aviation Sales Ltd., while USCAN cross-moved for summary judgment to confirm its possessory lien and for an order requiring Mansfield to provide security.

The court dismissed the security for costs motion, finding USCAN had a good chance of partial success and that the defendant conceded some amount was owing.

The court granted a declaration that USCAN has a possessory lien over the helicopter, but declined to order Mansfield to pay security into court, maintaining the status quo until the amount of the lien is determined.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought an application for a declaration that he did not have a pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding an appeal where his son acted as counsel for the appellant.

The applicant argued that his deemed pecuniary interest was so remote or insignificant that it fell under the exemption in s. 4(k) of the Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a reasonable elector would likely conclude that a father would be influenced by his son's direct involvement as counsel in the matter, and therefore the interest was not remote or insignificant.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, brought an application for a declaration that he did not have a pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding an Ontario Municipal Board appeal in which his son's law firm represented the appellant.

The applicant named Her Majesty the Queen as the respondent, following previous case law, but the Crown declined to participate.

The court declined to decide the application on its merits, finding that the relevant municipalities should be given notice and an opportunity to participate to ensure an adversarial context and a complete review of the facts.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a promissory note, arguing statutory defences under the Bills of Exchange Act for failure to present the note and notify the guarantor of dishonour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to plead these statutory defences at trial and did not seek leave to amend their pleadings upon discovering the relevant evidence.

The court noted that the appellants' prior conduct of making payments on the note could infer a waiver of presentment, and without amended pleadings, the respondent had no need to reopen the case.

Following the release of the appeal judgment, the parties sought to settle the form of the order regarding costs of a letter of credit and the applicable post-judgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was responsible for the costs of the letter of credit only up to the date the appeal judgment was released.

The Court declined to vary the statutory post-judgment interest rate on the trial costs, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the Courts of Justice Act scheme.