John O’Sullivan

The applicants, daughters of the respondent, sought a declaration that their father's transfer of his interest in a $4.3 million mortgage to a family trust was a valid gift.

The father argued he lacked donative intent, believing he controlled and was a beneficiary of the trust, and alternatively claimed his daughters unduly influenced him.

The court found the father had donative intent, understanding the estate freeze and trust terms after receiving independent legal and accounting advice.

The court also found no undue influence, as the father acted freely and the daughters were not in a position to dominate his will.

The transfer was upheld as a valid gift.

The applicant estate trustee sought to prove the deceased's 2014 Will in solemn form after the attesting witnesses refused to swear an affidavit of execution.

The witnesses, who were subpoenaed to testify, acknowledged their signatures but claimed they had no recollection of witnessing the deceased sign the document.

The court applied the presumption of due execution, finding that the Will was valid on its face and that the witnesses' lack of memory did not rebut the presumption.

The Will was proven in solemn form and costs were ordered payable from the estate on a complete indemnity basis.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for repayment of loans and a declaration of an equitable lien.

The plaintiff argued that communications in 2010 created an equitable mortgage or lien, or alternatively, that he was entitled to relief based on unjust enrichment, constructive trust, or promissory estoppel, which would invoke a 10-year limitation period.

The court found that the 2010 communications lacked the necessary detail and certainty to establish an equitable mortgage or lien, and that the plaintiff's decision to discharge the prior mortgage despite legal advice meant he assumed the risk of the debt being unsecured.

The court also rejected claims for unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and promissory estoppel, finding a juristic reason for the benefit (promissory notes) and no clear agreement for a new mortgage.

Consequently, most of the plaintiff's claims were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, except for a separate $12,000 loan made in 2015.

Application concerning interpretation of an escrow clause in an agreement of purchase and sale for three apartment buildings.

A portion of the purchase price was held in escrow for three years and payable to the vendor if the buildings' rent roll met a specified annualized threshold by the end of the performance period.

The purchaser argued that performance should be assessed based on actual rental income over the three‑year period.

The court held that the clause required examination of the rent roll and that the escrow amount was payable if the annualized gross rental threshold was reached in any month during the performance period.

Finding that the threshold was met in April 2014, the court ordered the escrow funds and accrued interest paid to the vendor.

Following judgment finding the defendant liable for passing off and awarding $10,000 in compensatory damages, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiff sought over $40,000 in partial indemnity costs while the defendant sought costs in its favour due to the plaintiff’s failure to obtain punitive damages.

The court emphasized that costs in simplified procedure actions under Rule 76 must remain significantly lower than those in ordinary procedure and proportionate to the recovery.

Considering the modest damages award, settlement offers, and Rule 57.01 factors, the court found both parties’ proposed costs excessive.

The plaintiff’s costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The plaintiff and defendant are competitors in the industrial safety products business, owned by two brothers.

The defendant registered the domain name 'dentecsafety.ca', which was highly similar to the plaintiff's 'dentecsafety.com', and redirected internet traffic to its own website for 5.5 months.

The plaintiff sued for passing-off, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The court found that the defendant committed the tort of passing-off, as it possessed goodwill, made a misrepresentation causing likely confusion, and caused actual or potential damage.

The court awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages.

The plaintiff brought a motion to stay pending summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, arguing that the motions were premature and that discovery was necessary to develop a full evidentiary record capable of satisfying the “full appreciation” test.

The defendants opposed the stay and argued that the issues—primarily a limitation period defence under the Limitations Act, 2002—were appropriate for determination on summary judgment.

The court reviewed the post‑2010 summary judgment framework articulated by the Court of Appeal and considered whether the evidentiary record required the procedural advantages of a trial.

The court found that the dispute was largely document‑driven, involved limited witnesses, and centred on whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the loss of her beneficial interest in property by at least April 2009.

The court held that the matter was suitable for summary judgment and dismissed the motion to stay.