Kellie Hodges

The applicant sought to stay the tax sale of his commercial condominium due to property tax arrears, claiming he was entitled to tax relief for sickness or extreme poverty.

The respondent municipality brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application based on a prior settlement agreement.

The court found that the parties had reached a binding settlement to dismiss the application without costs.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's underlying claim for tax relief fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assessment Review Board, and the applicant failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

The application was dismissed.

Following a summary judgment decision awarding damages for conversion, the plaintiff requested clarification regarding unresolved claims for unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

The court held that the unjust enrichment claim had been pleaded only as an alternative to conversion and therefore did not require adjudication once conversion was established.

The court acknowledged that the prior reasons failed to address the punitive damages claim and considered it in this supplementary endorsement.

It concluded that the defendants’ conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.

The claim for punitive damages was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner and new general contractor for the tort of conversion.

After the original general contractor became insolvent, the plaintiff sought to remove its custom-built equipment from the construction site.

The defendants refused access, claiming the equipment had been paid for under the original contract.

The court found that title to the equipment never passed to the defendants and their refusal to allow the plaintiff to retrieve it constituted conversion.

Summary judgment was granted and damages were awarded based on the defendants' previous counter-offer to purchase the equipment.

The plaintiff subcontractor moved for summary judgment arising from a bridge construction dispute after the original general contractor became insolvent.

The motion concerned customized arch assembly jigs and a modified power container that remained on site and were then used by a replacement contractor to complete the project.

The court held that title to the equipment never passed under the subcontract, that the defendants’ refusal to permit removal was unreasonable, and that both defendants were liable in conversion.

Summary judgment was granted, damages were fixed at $135,600, and motion costs of $20,000 were awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants moved under rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a claim alleging failure to give reasonable notice of non‑renewal of a long‑standing contractual relationship.

The plaintiff had been a member of the defendants’ partner network for approximately twenty years under an agreement renewable annually at the defendants’ sole discretion.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants exercised their discretionary renewal power unreasonably by refusing renewal without any notice.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The organizing principle of good faith in contractual performance, recognized in Bhasin v. Hrynew, did not foreclose the possibility that discretionary renewal powers might need to be exercised reasonably in certain circumstances.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike a claim arising from litigation related to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The court adjourned the motion pending the outcome of a related appeal before the Court of Appeal involving the same underlying facts and legal issues.

The judge held that the appellate decision would likely have a significant impact on the issues in the motion, particularly regarding the availability of ancillary remedies in PM(NOC) Regulations litigation.

The adjournment was justified on grounds of judicial economy, efficiency, and the avoidance of potentially duplicative proceedings.

The court concluded that the short delay would not cause real prejudice and any financial impact could be compensated by interest.