3 total
Issue estoppel did not bar new affidavits in wrongful dismissal summary judgment motion.
The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a wrongful dismissal action and argued that prior findings in a defamation proceeding barred the plaintiffs from introducing additional affidavit evidence under the doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.
The defendant asserted that the earlier decision had already determined that surveillance cameras were installed to intercept private communications, constituting a criminal act justifying termination under the management consulting agreement.
The court held that the earlier decision only determined that private communications had been intercepted under the Criminal Code and did not determine whether the conduct constituted a criminal act of dishonesty resulting in personal gain as required under the contract.
Because the issues in the contractual termination clause had not been fully adjudicated, the prerequisites for issue estoppel were not met.
The court exercised its discretion to permit the plaintiffs to rely on the proposed affidavits in defending the summary judgment motion.
Appeal dismissed; lease extension triggered upon initial acceptance of waste and third-party indemnity enforced.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that a lease agreement for a municipal solid waste demonstration plant expired on January 28, 2003, and ordering the third party to indemnify the respondent municipality.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the automatic three-year extension was triggered when the facility first accepted waste, not when it was fully completed.
The Court also upheld the finding that the third party was bound by an indemnity undertaking contained in its proposal, which was incorporated into the agreement between its wholly-owned subsidiary and the municipality.
Appeal of share valuation and oppression compensation dismissed; trial judge's assessment of expert evidence upheld.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment that established the value of the respondent's minority shareholding and calculated amounts of excessive compensation and unjustified corporate expenses taken by the appellant.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing a late amendment to the pleadings regarding share ownership and by improperly weighing the expert valuation evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly refused the late amendment as the appellant had previously abandoned the issue, and the respondent remained the registered shareholder entitled to relief.
The Court also held that the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence was supported by the record and entitled to deference.
