Joshua A. Valler

The tenants brought an urgent motion for a stay of a Divisional Court order pending determination of their motion for leave to appeal and, if leave were granted, their appeal.

They also requested a transfer of their motions to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, concluding that the proper appeal route was to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, meaning there was no serious question to be determined by the Court of Appeal.

The court also declined to transfer the motions to the Divisional Court under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, despite acknowledging an arguable question of law regarding the termination notice, due to the significant prejudice suffered by the landlord from the tenants' failure to vacate and pay rent, which had already jeopardized one sale and threatened another.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of trespass, nuisance, Rylands v. Fletcher, and interference with riparian rights, arising from a neighbour dispute over dock and boat lift placement.

The court dismissed the claims for trespass, nuisance, and Rylands v. Fletcher, finding no genuine issue for trial.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the interference with riparian rights, as there was circumstantial evidence of the defendant's involvement in moving the plaintiff's boat lift and a dispute over the proper boundary for riparian access.

The court emphasized the difficulty of resolving factual conflicts in simplified procedure actions without cross-examination and ordered the riparian rights claim to proceed to a simplified trial.

The plaintiffs, V.P.M. Marketing and Media Consulting Inc. and Patricia Mitchell, sued the defendants, Stephen Jenne, Barbara Jenne, and BAMS Marketing Inc., for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with economic relations, seeking damages and punitive damages.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid commissions.

The court found Stephen Jenne to be a dependent contractor who owed and breached fiduciary duties and the duty of good faith to VPM by secretly orchestrating the transfer of VPM's clients to his own company, BAMS Marketing Inc., after the death of VPM's founder.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $614,624 in compensatory damages for lost profits and $30,000 in punitive damages.

The defendants' counterclaim was dismissed due to lack of proof, the application of the Limitations Act, and laches/acquiescence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that declared the respondents had a right of way "in, over, and upon" a portion of the appellant's property, including the right to maintain drainage infrastructure (a catch basin and lateral pipe).

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued the trial judge erred by failing to provide adequate assistance and by improperly interpreting the scope of the easement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no procedural unfairness and that the drainage infrastructure constituted an ancillary right reasonably necessary to the use and enjoyment of the right of way.

The plaintiffs brought a supplemental motion for summary judgment to hold the individual defendants personally liable for the unpaid purchase price of a fitness club business.

The court found that the individual defendants, as the controlling minds of the corporate defendant, used the corporation to engage in improper and dishonest conduct by converting the plaintiffs' assets without payment.

Applying the principles of good faith dealing and piercing the corporate veil, the court granted summary judgment against the individual defendants for $58,697.06.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding their right of access to waterfront property through membership in Cedar Ridge Waterfront Park Corporation (CRRC).

The motion judge found a common intention that lot purchasers would have water access through CRRC membership.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the right of access was contractual in nature, not an easement or easement by estoppel.

The court found that the documentation and circumstances were inconsistent with the creation of an easement, including the requirement to assign membership to subsequent purchasers and the absence of typical easement indicia such as metes and bounds descriptions.

The plaintiffs sold their fitness club franchise to the corporate defendant via an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) without legal representation.

The corporate defendant took possession but failed to pay the purchase price, which involved assuming two small business loans, and failed to pay rent, causing the plaintiffs to default on their lease and incur a claw-back of deferred rent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment for the amounts owed and sought to pierce the corporate veil to hold the personal defendants liable.

The court granted summary judgment against the corporate defendant for the loan amounts and the foreseeable deferred rent claw-back, totaling $85,637.97.

However, the court ordered a mini-trial to determine liability for three months of rent and dismissed the claims against the personal defendants because the tort of conversion and breach of good faith were not pleaded, though leave to amend was granted.