Stewart

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve a dispute over commercial roof repairs and a construction lien.

The settlement required the responding party to rectify specific deficiencies by a deadline, subject to approval by an independent engineering firm, failing which funds held in court would be released to the moving party and the action dismissed.

The engineering firm found the responding party failed to correct all deficiencies.

The moving party sought summary judgment to enforce the settlement, while the responding party cross-moved for relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the moving party's motion and dismissed the cross-motion, finding the settlement terms constituted an agreed-upon forfeiture rather than an unconscionable penalty, and ordered the funds released.

The appellant appealed a decision of a Reference Judge upholding the Chief Firearms Officer's refusal to renew his firearms licence.

The refusal was based on three past incidents of alleged domestic violence that resulted in criminal charges, which were ultimately withdrawn but led to two peace bonds.

The appellant argued the Firearms Officer unreasonably relied on unsworn police reports and withdrawn charges.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Firearms Officer reasonably considered the cumulative effect of the incidents and peace bonds in determining that issuing the licence was not in the interests of public safety.

The self-represented appellant applied under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of state-funded counsel to assist with his appeal of convictions for assault causing bodily harm and assault of a peace officer.

The convictions arose from an altercation with correctional officers while the appellant was an inmate.

The court found that the appeal raised arguable issues regarding the officers' use of force, self-defence, and potential Charter breaches.

Concluding that the appeal involved complex legal issues that the court would be better able to determine with the assistance of counsel, the application was granted and counsel was appointed.

The applicant sought $813,000 from her deceased former common-law spouse's estate, claiming an interest in the proceeds of the sale of his residential property based on unjust enrichment and a joint family venture.

The court found that the parties maintained separate finances and property ownership during their relationship, and the applicant did not suffer a deprivation nor did the deceased receive an enrichment.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims, finding no unjust enrichment and no joint family venture.

The Crown applied for a further extension of time for the detention of seized items under s. 490(3) of the Criminal Code.

The extension was sought due to new conflicting information from interviews and practical complications arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated proceeding by way of a Production Order instead of executing search warrants.

The respondent did not object.

The court granted a five-month extension, finding it in the best interests of the administration of justice given the complexity of the investigation and the absence of prejudice.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding the termination of several franchise and non-branded agreements for convenience stores at remote campsites.

The defendant argued it terminated the agreements in accordance with their clear provisions and a client's cost-cutting directive.

The plaintiff argued the termination breached the agreements, the defendant's Code of Conduct, and obligations of good faith, alleging the defendant terminated the agreements to appropriate the business for itself.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff raised genuine issues requiring a trial.

Following the plaintiff's successful motion for summary judgment and successful resistance of the defendants' cross-motion, the plaintiff sought costs of $37,011.28 based on an offer to settle.

The defendants argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate to the $178,000 at issue.

The court found the requested amount too high and fixed costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, citing the overriding principle of proportionality.

Following a trial under the Simplified Rule procedure where liability was determined in favour of the defendant, the defendant sought costs.

The defendant had made offers to settle for $600 and $1,000, which the self-represented plaintiff rejected.

The defendant claimed partial indemnity costs of $51,702.25 or substantial indemnity costs of approximately $63,000.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the defendant's costs at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff mortgagor defaulted on a matured mortgage.

The defendant mortgagees issued a Notice of Sale claiming the principal, regular interest, and an additional three months' interest pursuant to section 17 of the Mortgages Act.

The plaintiff paid the amount under protest to discharge the mortgage and brought an action to recover the three months' interest.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that once a mortgagee issues a Notice of Sale to realize on its security after maturity, it cannot unilaterally impose a three-month interest penalty under section 17.

The plaintiff was granted summary judgment for the recovery of the disputed interest.

The respondent requested clarification of a paragraph in the court's previous decision regarding an insurance coverage dispute.

The court issued an addendum clarifying that the respondent is responsible for the first $200,000 of any judgment or settlement against the insured in the underlying action, while maintaining its contractual right to deny coverage to other parties.

The defendants were successful in obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action on the basis that a settlement had been agreed to.

The defendants sought costs approaching $20,000.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the modest amount in issue and the straightforward nature of the motion.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking the incarceration of the defendant for contempt of court, alleging he failed to comply with costs orders and failed to complete 250 hours of court-ordered community service.

The court found that the defendant had only proven completion of 44 hours and that his evidence regarding the remaining hours was highly suspicious.

However, the court concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate a wilful intention to mislead sufficient to justify incarceration.

The defendant was ordered to complete the remaining 206 hours of community service by a specified date.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for malicious prosecution, defamation, negligence, and misrepresentation.

The claims arose from the defendant reporting the plaintiffs to the police for alleged corporate fraud, which led to criminal charges that were later withdrawn.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the misrepresentation claim, finding no reliance by the plaintiffs.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding the remaining claims, concluding that a fair and just determination could not be made at this stage due to outstanding factual issues and incomplete discovery.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought an action against the defendants, who were opposing counsel and parties in a separate solicitors' negligence action, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, and other improprieties.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care is owed to an opposing party during litigation, and therefore the claim raised no genuine issue for trial and constituted an abuse of process.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike out the plaintiffs' Amended Statement of Claim, arguing it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and lacked sufficient detail.

The plaintiffs' claim alleged breach of contract, oppression, breach of good faith, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment arising from a joint venture departure agreement and an alleged sham termination of a management contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the claims were pleaded with sufficient particularity and it was not plain and obvious that they would fail.

The plaintiff moved for leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add claims for punitive and aggravated damages, and for further discovery, after the action had been set down for trial.

The proposed amendments arose from the defendant's late production of an accident investigation report.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff failed to seek leave under Rule 48.04 and that the amendments raised a statute-barred new cause of action.

The court granted the motion, finding the amendments merely provided new legal characterizations of existing claims rather than a new cause of action, and the defendant demonstrated no non-compensable prejudice.

The applicants sought to set aside or vary two interlocutory awards made by an arbitrator, arguing that the arbitrator made findings on unpleaded allegations, resulting in a 'trial by ambush.' The underlying arbitration involved a dispute over share ownership and unpaid dividends, where the arbitrator dismissed the applicants' summary judgment motion based on a limitation period defence.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that the court should not interfere with interlocutory arbitral decisions to avoid piecemeal review.

Furthermore, the court found no procedural unfairness, as the issues had been properly pleaded and the applicants had the opportunity to call reply evidence but declined to do so.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitral award finding it breached contractual and fiduciary duties by failing to redeem the respondent's hedge fund investment.

The arbitrator awarded $1.3 million in damages, rejecting the applicant's argument that damages should be assessed based on an alternative, less onerous method of performance.

The Superior Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the arbitrator correctly interpreted the contract as mandating only one method of performance and that the applicant's challenges raised issues of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

Following a motion where the applicants achieved substantial success, the parties provided written submissions on costs.

The applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,803.00 plus disbursements.

The respondents argued they should be compensated for costs thrown away due to allegedly wasteful steps.

The court awarded the applicants $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, leaving the respondents' arguments regarding wasted costs to be determined by the trial judge.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $25,526, including a request that costs be paid personally by the plaintiff's counsel.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the issue and time incurred, and declined to order costs against counsel personally.

The court fixed costs at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the plaintiff.