Ted Tichinoff

The applicants brought a motion under Rule 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requesting a trial of issues arising from the estate of the deceased.

The court directed a trial on the single issue of the validity of the deceased's will dated May 16, 1994, noting that resolving this issue would likely resolve all other issues or determine if further proceedings are necessary.

The court ordered the affidavits to form the pleadings and permitted cross-examinations.

No costs were awarded as success was split.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment in accordance with minutes of settlement arising from a shareholder oppression dispute between brothers over a corporation that operated a restaurant franchise and owned related real property.

The responding parties argued, in substance, that post-settlement tax advice permitted a different transaction structure, but did not assert non est factum, mistake, or unenforceability.

The court held the minutes of settlement contained all essential terms, including price, payment timing, responsibility for payments, and contemplated tax treatment, and found a clear meeting of the minds.

The court further declined to refuse enforcement on residual discretionary grounds, finding no unfairness and potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the settlement were not enforced.

Judgment was granted in accordance with the minutes of settlement, with motion costs fixed at $17,500.

Multiple plaintiffs brought a civil action for damages arising from assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering following repeated incidents of non-consensual sexual touching and degrading sexual harassment by a neighbour during social interactions.

The defendant did not defend the action and failed to appear at trial.

The court found that repeated non-consensual touching constituted battery and that accompanying degrading remarks and intimidation caused reasonable apprehension of further sexual battery, amounting to assault and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Although several plaintiffs described psychological impacts, no expert medical evidence was presented.

The court awarded modest general damages reflecting the seriousness of the conduct but the limited evidentiary record and relatively short duration of events.