Adam Beyhum

The applicants sought leave to appeal or to set aside three arbitral awards arising from a family business dispute over the separation of the G&L Group.

The respondent brought a cross-application to enforce the awards.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the alleged errors of law were in fact questions of fact or mixed fact and law, and that the arbitrator's conduct was not procedurally egregious.

The court granted the respondent's application to enforce the arbitral awards and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that prevented them from discontinuing their action against certain defendants and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against those defendants.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in interpreting the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding when pleadings are closed in a multi-defendant action, clarifying that pleadings are not closed until they are complete against all defendants.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's alternative finding that the notice of discontinuance constituted an abuse of process and affirmed the grant of summary judgment, as well as the award of substantial indemnity costs, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the action was frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant credit union sought an order appointing a receiver and manager over the property and assets of the respondent hotel franchisee and its owner due to significant loan defaults.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing they had a plan to sell the property and refinance to pay off their creditors.

The court found the respondents' proposed sale agreement was not firm and lacked evidence of financial viability.

Concluding that the applicant's security was at risk and a receiver was necessary to stabilize the business, the court granted the application and appointed the receiver, though it declined to authorize an immediate assignment into bankruptcy.