Joseph Markin

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award dismissing their claims for unpaid contractor fees, arguing the expedited arbitration rules violated the Arbitration Act by denying them a fair hearing.

The respondents argued the application was out of time and that the parties had agreed to the arbitration rules in their contract.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the applicants had expressly agreed to the arbitration rules and that the application was brought beyond the strict 30-day time limit under section 47 of the Arbitration Act, which the court had no authority to extend.

Supplementary endorsement addressing distribution of funds held in trust following a prior decision determining entitlement between vendor and purchaser in a real estate transaction.

The court had previously invited written submissions regarding entitlement to GST included in the purchase price and the cost of steel plates allegedly lost after delivery to the job-site.

After reviewing the additional submissions, the court concluded that the purchase price under the agreement of purchase and sale was $500,000 plus GST and that GST had been properly paid.

The court also accepted that $7,500 should be deducted for the steel plates.

The court directed the trust funds to be distributed primarily to the vendor with a smaller amount to the purchasers and added a corporate purchaser nunc pro tunc as a co‑plaintiff/applicant.

A commercial dispute arose following a land purchase agreement that included a separate agreement for the purchase of custom-fabricated structural steel, with $525,000 held in trust pending verification of the steel.

The purchaser claimed entitlement to the trust funds after failing to verify the steel within the contractual period, arguing that a prior settlement had been reached and that verification could not reasonably be completed.

The court found that no binding settlement was reached during negotiations between the parties.

However, the court held that the purchaser failed to act reasonably and in good faith in attempting to complete verification, particularly by refusing a reasonable proposal to share the cost of reproducing fabrication drawings necessary for verification.

The vendor was therefore entitled to most of the trust funds, subject to a possible adjustment relating to GST and steel plate costs.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages alleging the defendants made false representations regarding the financial status of two courier companies he invested in and later purchased.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid amounts under a share purchase agreement and for the value of retained shares.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding he was an experienced businessman who had the opportunity to conduct due diligence and failed to prove any misrepresentations.

The court granted the defendants' counterclaims in part, ordering the plaintiff to pay $50,000 to Saini for the outstanding balance of the share purchase agreement, and $50,000 to Stanford for his unabandoned share interest in the companies.

The appellant appealed a conviction for criminal harassment under s. 264 of the Criminal Code.

The appeal argued that the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment after the Crown indicated it would seek to amend the Information to expand the timeframe of the alleged conduct, and that the refusal created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant also challenged the finding that the actus reus and mens rea of criminal harassment were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court held that decisions concerning adjournments attract deference and found no prejudice because disclosure of the earlier incidents had already been provided and the evidence would have been admissible regardless of the amendment.

The court further concluded that the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence establishing the complainant’s reasonable fear and the accused’s intent.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.