Jordan Duncan Russel Dobson Sharpe

This appeal arose from a tragic boat accident involving multiple fatalities and injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed three consolidated appeals: liability of government respondents, interpretation of the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap, and costs.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the boat operators were solely liable for the accident, dismissing the appeal against the government respondents.

It also affirmed that the Marine Liability Act's monetary cap for maritime claims for loss of life or personal injury does not include costs and interest.

While leave to appeal the quantum of costs and the Sanderson Order was denied, leave was granted on one specific costs issue, resulting in both estates being held jointly and severally liable for one plaintiff's costs.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a claim by his late mother's estate.

The estate alleged the defendant failed to pay his mother a one-third share of crop income from a farm property as required by his late father's will.

The defendant argued that when he stopped farming, he and his mother agreed she would receive one-third of the rental income instead, which she accepted for 18 years.

The court found the estate's evidence relied on inadmissible hearsay from interested beneficiaries that lacked threshold reliability and corroboration under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The court concluded the mother had agreed to or acquiesced in the changed payment arrangement and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The court issued an addendum to its previous written reasons to correct an arithmetic error regarding the overpayment of rent and utilities, setting the correct sum at $63,142.18.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $4,613.10 for the June 2019 rent overpayment.

The court clarified that the return of the deposit would be decided under the terms of the lease and would not be returned at this point.

This motion concerned the interpretation of a commercial lease between a pharmacy (applicant) and a medical centre (respondent) regarding rent calculation.

The applicant argued that rent should be based on the actual measured square footage of the premises, while the respondent contended it was a fixed amount regardless of space.

The court applied principles of contractual interpretation, including the parol evidence rule, to determine the parties' mutual objective intention.

The applicant also sought reimbursement for overpaid utility charges and the return of a security deposit.