Marcus Boire

In a family dispute over their mother's property, the defendant sister sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The moving plaintiff sister sought an order permitting her to attend the cross-examination of their mother on her affidavit.

The court reviewed the law on excluding co-parties from examinations to prevent the tailoring of evidence or intimidation.

The court ordered that the moving plaintiff be excluded from the mother's cross-examination, directing that only counsel, an interpreter, and the mother be present.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment to recover the balance owing on a loan agreement.

The defendants argued the agreement was unenforceable, claiming they lacked independent legal advice and that the arrangement was actually a partnership where losses should be shared.

The court found no evidence of a partnership and noted the loan agreement explicitly remained in force if no partnership agreement was executed.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs for the agreed outstanding amount.

The plaintiffs were successful on a motion to dismiss the claim against one of the defendants, after consenting to the dismissal of one plaintiff's claim without costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs of $8,561.40 on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued for costs of $1,860.00 in the cause, noting that one of the two issues was resolved prior to the hearing.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) and fixed costs payable to the plaintiffs at $3,300 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, apportioning some preparation time to the resolved issue.

The plaintiff, a medical secretary, sued her former employer, a physician, for wrongful dismissal after 12.5 years of service.

The defendant claimed he terminated her for cause due to performance issues and her refusal to accept a significant salary reduction.

The court found insufficient evidence to support termination for cause, noting the defendant's complaints were largely related to an alleged overpayment error by his accountant.

The court awarded the plaintiff a nine-month notice period, amounting to $32,676.79, finding she had adequately mitigated her damages by retraining as a real estate agent.