G. Dow

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding a property boundary dispute.

The settlement required the parties to hire a licensed surveyor to determine a new boundary line.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the surveyor improperly selected a boundary previously determined by the defendants' surveyor.

The court found that the settlement agreement, read objectively, did not preclude the new boundary from matching a previously alleged boundary.

The motion was granted, and the survey was ordered to be registered on title.

The defendant mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' (daughter and son-in-law) claim for an interest in a residential property and sought a writ of possession.

The plaintiffs claimed a resulting or constructive trust based on a $100,000 gift and upkeep expenses.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the property was transferred to the defendant and her late husband with independent legal advice after the plaintiffs defaulted on mortgages.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for resulting trust and unjust enrichment, granted summary judgment dismissing the action, and ordered vacant possession to the defendant by June 30, 2015.

The individual defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against him personally for negligent misrepresentation regarding a home theatre installation.

The court found no evidence that the individual defendant made representations in his personal capacity or that any representations were knowingly false.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the claim against the individual defendant was dismissed, with costs fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $155,000 from three loans made to the corporate defendant and personally guaranteed by the individual defendants.

The plaintiff demanded repayment based on the defendants' failure to provide monthly financial statements, which had not been previously requested.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiff provided reasonable notice of default and whether the plaintiff's actions constituted a breach of contract.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims regarding intellectual property rights in software, arguing the claims were barred by a quitclaim agreement and the expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant credibility issues existed regarding the execution and knowledge of the quitclaim, as well as the discoverability of the claim, which could not be resolved fairly using the enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial in the normal course.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking repayment of transition loans totaling over $1.8 million made to the defendant financial advisor.

The defendant argued the repayment terms were unenforceable because they were provided after the business relationship commenced and lacked consideration, and that the relationship was actually employer-employee.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial given the late delivery of the repayment schedule and the potential inconsistency with the defendant's pending counterclaim.

The applicant law firms brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of initiating multiple proceedings against his former lawyers, including solicitor negligence claims and assessments of accounts, while failing to pay numerous costs awards.

The court found the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not institute or continue any proceeding without leave of the court.

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.

The applicant sought to continue an interim injunction over an aircraft owned by the respondent, an agency of the Kingdom of Swaziland, claiming a non-possessory lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act for funds advanced for refurbishment.

The court found the respondent was not immune under the State Immunity Act due to the commercial activity exception.

However, the court dismissed the motion, finding the applicant was not a 'repairer' under the Act, the limitation period had expired, and there was no irreparable harm to justify an injunction.

A motion by proposed intervenors was also dismissed.

The aircraft was ordered released to the respondent, with a seven-day stay pending appeal.

The plaintiff, acting in person, sought repayment of funds allegedly given to the defendant to hold in trust from life insurance proceeds, asserting an advance of $51,000 repayable on demand.

The court found that only $40,000 was proven to have been advanced and rejected the alleged additional $11,000 cash payment on the evidence.

The court accepted that the defendant repaid the equivalent of $20,000 while the parties were in Grenada in January 2012.

Judgment was therefore granted for $20,000, with pre-judgment interest under s. 128 of the Courts of Justice Act from the date of issuance of the statement of claim, and partial recovery of disbursement costs.