Rachel Allen

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b), arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action in contract, negligence, or negligent misrepresentation, and that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants, operating under an unregistered business name, defectively designed and installed a geothermal energy system.

The court held that the plaintiff properly pleaded a contract based on a proposal document and that the negligence claims were viable.

The court also found it was not plain and obvious that the limitation period had expired, as the plaintiff pleaded it discovered the damage within the two-year period.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for additional construction work performed outside the scope of their written agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to admit a late affidavit, failing to apply the correct tests for oral contracts and quantum meruit, and providing insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised trial management discretion to exclude the late affidavit, reasonably valued the additional work at the contractor's regular rates under quantum meruit principles, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment in which the court found Yahya Dikeni Hashiru liable for unjust enrichment in the amount of $713,089 and Spotless Consultancy Inc. liable for fraud in the amount of $2,726,050 plus punitive damages of $250,000.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs of $100,000 against both defendants.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $100,000 against Spotless based on the fraud finding, but awarded only $60,000 against Hashiru on a lesser scale given that the successful claim was for unjust enrichment rather than fraud.

The court also ordered a post-judgment Mareva injunction in aid of execution for 9 months and granted tracing orders regarding two Ghanaian entities.

The applicants sought to set aside an arbitration award under section 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1991, arguing that the arbitrator’s mid-hearing switch from an oral to a written process, and refusal to consider their closing submissions, constituted unequal and unfair treatment.

The Court found that the applicants were denied their statutory rights to an oral hearing and to equal treatment, and set aside the award, remitting the matter for a new hearing before a different arbitration panel.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether a medical office building in Toronto was held as an asset of a partnership or as a tenancy in common.

The appellants, majority owners, sought a declaration of partnership and related relief, while the respondents argued for a sale under the Partition Act.

The Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that no partnership existed, but found error in the order dispensing with the appellants’ consent to the sale of the property.

The Court directed a reference to an associate judge for the sale and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

The appellant appealed an order striking his Notice of Application and refusing leave to amend, which sought Charter relief against the respondents.

The motion judge found the Charter claim could not succeed, was a collateral attack on a Law Society decision, and that the Charter did not apply to the individual respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the Charter interpretation or application, and that summary determination was not an abuse of process.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's motion for review of a single judge's order regarding joint representation, deeming it frivolous and an abuse of process.

This was a motion for a stay of an order issued by Akazaki J. following a summary judgment motion.

The appellants, who own 75% of a commercial property, sought to buy out the respondents, who own 25%, under the Partnerships Act.

The respondents counter-claimed for a sale under the Partition Act, which the motion judge granted, allowing them a unilateral 90-day period to sell the property.

The appellants sought a stay of this remedy pending their appeal.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found the appeal had sufficient merit, particularly regarding the motion judge's imposition of an unrequested remedy.

Irreparable harm was established due to the risk of the appeal becoming moot if the property sale proceeded.

The balance of convenience also favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay was granted, and costs were awarded to the appellants.

The offenders, a police officer and an employee of the Public Guardian and Trustee, were convicted by a jury of defrauding an estate of over $830,000 using a forged will.

The employee was also convicted of breach of trust by a public official.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the complexity and duration of the fraud, the significant impact on the victim, and the offenders' abuse of their positions of public trust.

Both offenders were sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment.

The court also issued restitution and forfeiture orders for the full amount of the fraud.