Justice L.C. Leitch

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that an equipment lease, general security agreement, and personal guarantee with the defendant financing company were void after the equipment supplier absconded with the advanced funds and failed to deliver the equipment.

The financing company counterclaimed for the balance owing under the lease.

The court found that the financing company failed to ensure delivery of the equipment before advancing funds, constituting a fundamental breach.

Furthermore, the court held that the no-cancellation clause was unenforceable because the financing company failed to bring it to the plaintiffs' attention.

The agreements were declared void, the financing company's claim was dismissed, and it was ordered to return the funds paid by the plaintiffs.

The parties, former law partners, brought cross-motions regarding the dissolution of their partnership and the winding up of their jointly owned corporation.

The defendant sought partial summary judgment on consent for a declaration of dissolution and an accounting, which the court granted, directing a reference.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to request a winding up of the corporation and a forced sale of the defendant's shares rather than the sale of the corporation's building.

The court allowed the amendments, finding them not untenable in law, and ordered the winding up of the corporation on consent.

The applicant brought a motion to remove his brother, the respondent, as the attorney for property and personal care for their mother, and to compel the return of over $439,000 transferred to the respondent by their parents.

The applicant also sought to strike the respondent's affidavit for failing to answer undertakings.

The court declined to strike the affidavit as the respondent's counsel took responsibility for the delay.

Applying the test for removal of a power of attorney, the court found evidence of financial misconduct but could not conclude on the motion record that removing the respondent was in the mother's best interests.

The court also found that the presumption of resulting trust applied to the inter vivos transfers, but directed a trial to determine whether the transfers were gifts and whether the power of attorney should be terminated.