W. Scott Gallagher

The plaintiff brought a motion for disclosure of emails allegedly transferred by a former employee to a competing business.

However, in its factum, the plaintiff abandoned the relief sought in its notice of motion and instead requested a stay of a previous motion and security for costs.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that a party cannot seek entirely different relief in its factum than what was claimed in its notice of motion.

Alternatively, the court noted the motion would have been dismissed on the merits as the plaintiff already possessed the requested emails.

The appellants sold their home to the respondents.

After signing the agreement of purchase and sale, which contained an entire agreement clause, the appellants completed a Seller Property Information Statement (SPIS) stating the property was not subject to flooding and undertaking to disclose any important changes.

Before closing, the basement flooded, but the appellants did not disclose this.

After closing, the basement flooded again.

The respondents sued for negligent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal held that while the entire agreement clause did not preclude a tort claim based on the post-contractual SPIS, the claim failed because the respondents could not prove they reasonably relied on the misrepresentation to their detriment.

In a family law trial where most issues were resolved on consent, the only dispute concerned the manner of satisfying the equalization obligation.

The court held that ss. 9 and 10.1 of the Family Law Act do not create any presumption that equalization must be effected by an immediate transfer from a pension plan.

Applying the statutory factors, the court found the equalization amount was modest relative to the liquid assets available from the pending sale of the matrimonial home, and that a pension transfer was not appropriate on these facts.

A divorce was granted and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $35,660.