Shaneka M. Taylor

The plaintiff claimed sole ownership of a property and sought damages for unauthorized renovations by the defendants.

The defendant real estate agent claimed a 50% equitable interest based on an oral joint venture agreement and financial contributions to the deposit and closing costs.

The court found the defendant had an equitable interest despite the lack of a formal written agreement, applying the doctrine of part performance.

However, because the defendant repudiated the agreement after the plaintiff's son gutted the property, she was entitled to restitution of her financial contributions totaling $154,615.55, while the plaintiff's claims for damages and loss of rent were dismissed.

The County brought Rule 21 motions seeking a declaration that its winter maintenance contractor, Steve Walt Property Maintenance, breached their contract by failing to procure insurance naming the County as an additional insured.

The County also sought damages for defence costs and the right to appoint its own counsel due to a conflict of interest with Steve Walt and its insurer, Economical Mutual Insurance Company.

Economical argued the motion was inappropriate due to disputed material facts.

The court found the contract unambiguous, Steve Walt in breach, and granted the County damages for defence costs and the right to choose its own counsel due to a clear conflict of interest.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for a slip and fall.

The municipality claimed contribution and indemnity from its winter maintenance contractor and the contractor's insurer.

The insurer appointed a single law firm to represent both the contractor and the municipality.

When the insurer later attempted to remove itself from representing the municipality, the municipality brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement for full defence and indemnity.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appointment of joint counsel necessarily implied an agreement to both defend and indemnify the municipality, as any other interpretation would have placed counsel in an untenable conflict of interest.