Jan D. Weir

The plaintiff sued the estate of a deceased businessman, alleging he made an oral personal promise to pay a $330,432 debt owed to the plaintiff by an insolvent company he controlled.

The plaintiff claimed it provided consideration by forbearing from litigation and continuing to supply parts.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the deceased only explained his intention to recapitalize the company from the sale of another business, which did not constitute a binding contract or personal guarantee.

Furthermore, the court found no consideration was given, as the deceased never requested forbearance from litigation.

Former employees and related parties moved for summary judgment dismissing a counterclaim alleging confidentiality breaches, fiduciary breaches, contractual breaches, inducement of breach, client solicitation, and misuse of confidential business information after the employees left to work for a competitor.

Applying the modern Rule 20 framework, the court held the record did not permit fair and just adjudication of most issues because key facts were disputed, credibility was engaged, and the claim and counterclaim substantially overlapped.

Partial summary judgment was nevertheless granted dismissing the fiduciary duty claim against the receptionist and apprentice hairstylist, as the record disclosed no basis on which either occupied a fiduciary position.

The balance of the action and counterclaim was ordered to proceed to trial, with motion costs left to the trial judge.

In a family trial following lengthy post-separation financial conflict, the court dismissed both parties' claims for post-separation accounting adjustments because the evidentiary record consisted largely of unreliable calculation charts unsupported by source documents.

The parties had agreed to equalization through a pension transfer, and a divorce was granted.

On child support, the court imputed income to the respondent based on his demonstrated standard of living and found him intentionally unemployed in the absence of admissible medical evidence establishing inability to work.

The court also imputed minimum-wage income to the applicant, found the adult daughter remained a child of the marriage while in full-time university studies, and ordered a formula for post-secondary expenses allocating net expenses 50 percent to the respondent, 25 percent to the applicant, and 25 percent to the child after disclosure and deduction of grants, bursaries, and scholarships.

On a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a spouse's corollary relief claim and preservation of a separation agreement, the court held the motion could not proceed because a pending Divisional Court appeal challenged an earlier severance order.

The court applied Rule 16(2) of the Family Law Rules, which prohibits deciding a claim that includes a divorce by summary judgment motion.

Given the unresolved validity of the severance, the court declined to hear the motion, converted the attendance into a case conference, and directed the parties to return after the appeal ruling.

Costs were deferred.

Following a motion for interim injunctive relief in a civil action alleging conspiracy and tortious conduct related to protest activities, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The moving party had obtained a limited interim injunction restraining certain conduct but was denied broader relief, including a proposed order against unidentified persons and further examination of the defendant.

The defendant argued that success on several issues and his status as a public interest protester justified either a costs award in his favour or no costs order.

The court held that the moving party was the successful party overall because it obtained injunctive relief restraining unacceptable conduct.

However, because the moving party sought overly broad relief that was largely denied, the claimed costs were reduced and fixed at a lower amount.