Kevin J. Scullion

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to set aside a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for a shortfall on a repossessed motorcycle.

The appellant claimed her signature on the guarantee was forged by her deceased husband.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating grounds to set aside the judgment, provided no expert evidence of forgery, offered no adequate explanation for the two-and-a-half-year delay, and would have caused prejudice to the respondent given the four-year delay in enforcement.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff was awarded $153,241.40, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $15,674.22 based on a contractual right.

The individual defendant argued costs should be fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $7,500.

Applying the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, the court found the plaintiff's hours slightly excessive for the complexity of the matter and fixed costs at $10,500.00, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The Appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation disallowing a first-year warranty claim for foundation leaks.

The Appellant argued that the builder failed to install dampproofing and drainage layers to ground level, contrary to the Ontario Building Code.

Tarion and the builder argued the claim was invalid because it was originally characterized as a lack of 'waterproofing' and that the installation met the functional intent of the Code.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the defect was sufficiently identified within the warranty period and that terminating the materials below ground level violated the Code and caused leaks.

Tarion was ordered to ensure the necessary repairs are completed.

The applicant first mortgagee sought a declaration validating a power of sale agreement and an order expunging cautions and subsequent encumbrances registered by the respondent mortgagor and second mortgagee.

The respondents brought a cross-application seeking an injunction to restrain the sale and an extension of time to redeem the mortgage.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to pre-emptively expunge the registrations or declare the sale valid before closing.

The court also dismissed the cross-application, holding that the mortgagor's right to redeem was extinguished upon the mortgagee entering into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale, and the mortgagor had not tendered the arrears or proven bad faith.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her counterclaim for loss of profit arising from a contract for the supply of manufactured parts.

The appellant argued that the respondent's defective delivery of the first instalment of parts amounted to a repudiation of the entire contract under s. 30(2) of the Sale of Goods Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the defective delivery was a severable breach and did not constitute repudiation, as there was no reasonable inference that similar breaches would occur in future instalments.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs order, reducing the trial costs awarded to the respondent from $60,000 to $40,000, finding that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted given the prominence of the counterclaim.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent on a promissory note, share purchase agreement, and guarantee.

The appellants relied on an alleged collateral agreement as a defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of any collateral agreement in the record to justify looking behind the terms of the written documents.

The parties were involved in a joint venture agreement to develop land.

When the lender demanded repayment of its loan, the appellants did not pay their share.

The respondents used a non-arm's length company to purchase the loan and foreclose on the lands, appropriating the appellants' investment.

The appellants sued for breach of the joint venture agreement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that none of the parties relied on the agreement's provisions and instead pursued self-interest outside its terms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, ruling that a party cannot enforce an agreement it has demonstrated an intention not to be bound by.