Kara Takagi

The defendants (other than Johnson Controls) brought a motion to stay the action based on alleged failure by the plaintiff and Johnson Controls to immediately disclose a settlement agreement (the Pro Rata Agreement) that they claimed changed the litigation landscape.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that timely disclosure was made in the context of this particular case and that the agreement did not change the litigation landscape because the action had been effectively stayed and the dispute was being pursued in arbitration.

The court also addressed the application of new Rule 49.14 regarding partial settlement disclosure and fashioned appropriate remedies.

The plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendant seeking damages for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action.

The motion was dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs as the successful responding parties.

The key issue involved a forum selection clause in the contract that the defendant sought to enforce, requiring litigation to occur in Texas.

The court found that the forum selection clause did not survive the defendant's unilateral termination of the contract due to the "surviving clauses" provision not including it.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs following a trial in which the plaintiffs, Faulkner Real Estate Ltd. and Judy Faulkner, sought damages for alleged exposure to mould in office space leased from the defendants, Sakto Corporation and Waterford Property Group Ltd. The plaintiffs initially claimed over $6,000,000, later reducing the claim to approximately $3,291,000, but were awarded only $4,000 as a partial rent abatement.

The court found the defendants to be the overwhelmingly successful parties and, after considering the offers to settle and other relevant factors, ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court-appointed Receiver and certain plaintiffs brought motions to interpret or amend a 2017 costs order made by Justice Kane.

The costs order, as drafted, appeared to make Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 396 (CCC 396) jointly and severally liable with the Burdet Group defendants to pay $410,000 in costs to the plaintiffs.

However, the same order also awarded CCC 396 $220,000 in costs payable by the plaintiffs.

The court found that the costs order contained an accidental omission and was inconsistent with Justice Kane's written costs decision.

Applying Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court amended the costs order to explicitly exclude CCC 396 from the defendants liable to pay costs to the plaintiffs.

This appeal concerned the application of the rule against perpetuities to land development agreements.

ClubLink Corporation ULC appealed a lower court decision that upheld perpetual obligations to operate a golf course or convey the land to the City of Ottawa.

The Court of Appeal found that the contractual provisions requiring conveyance of the golf course lands to the City, or reconveyance back to the original owner, created contingent interests in land.

As these interests did not vest within the 21-year perpetuity period, they are void and unenforceable.

The court clarified that the expectation of a contingency materializing is not a factor in determining if an interest in land is created.

The appeal was allowed, and the relevant sections of the 1981 Agreement were declared void.