Margot Marie Geneviève Leduc Pomerleau

This trial involved two consolidated actions: a construction lien claim by S & L Mechanical for unpaid invoices and a breach of trust claim against Robert Dompierre, the former president of Lexus Mechanical Inc. The court found that S & L's construction lien was not registered in a timely manner and had expired.

The breach of trust claim against Dompierre was also dismissed as it was commenced outside the two-year limitation period, as the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the loss much earlier.

However, the court determined the amounts owing to S & L from Lexus Mechanical Inc. (which was bankrupt but continued by order) and allowed certain set-offs claimed by Lexus for incomplete work by S & L. Ultimately, S & L was awarded a net judgment against Lexus Mechanical Inc.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim in a simplified procedure trial, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff argued for no costs due to divided success, while the defendant sought elevated costs based on a Rule 49 offer.

The court found the defendant was the successful party as the counterclaim was not pursued.

However, elevated costs were denied because the Rule 49 offer was silent on the counterclaim and potentially out of time.

Applying the principle of proportionality for simplified procedure cases, the court awarded the defendant costs fixed at $15,000 on a reduced partial indemnity basis.

Investors sued a chartered accountant and his consulting corporation alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence after losing money in complex domestic and offshore investment structures connected to an investment club and related entities.

The court found the advisor promoted the investments, failed to disclose commissions, and reassured the investors about the legitimacy of the structure despite serious regulatory concerns and structural deficiencies in the investment scheme.

The relationship involved trust, reliance, and vulnerability sufficient to create a fiduciary duty.

The advisor breached that duty by failing to disclose conflicts, failing to warn about regulatory issues, and misrepresenting the diligence performed.

Liability was imposed for the plaintiffs’ investment in the domestic issuer but not for later investments made after regulatory warnings, which the court held the plaintiffs unreasonably failed to mitigate.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action for damages alleging breach of contract or, alternatively, negligent misrepresentation arising from negotiations to renovate premises for a fitness franchise.

The plaintiff argued that the parties reached a binding agreement through meetings, draft contracts, and text messages indicating work would commence, despite the absence of a signed contract.

The defendant maintained there was never a clear acceptance of the plaintiff’s proposal and that negotiations remained conditional on financing, lease arrangements, and other unresolved terms.

The court held the plaintiff failed to establish a meeting of the minds or acceptance of the offer and found no evidence of misleading representations.

The action and the defendant’s counterclaim were both dismissed.

This appeal concerned ownership of a strip of land between riverfront lots and the Ottawa River, and whether the relevant subdivision plan extended the respondents' lots to the water's edge.

The court upheld the trial judge's finding of latent ambiguity and confirmed that extrinsic evidence could properly be used to interpret the deed and plan under the governing property law framework.

The court rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly focused on the original subdividers' intention, made a palpable and overriding factual error, or relied on immaterial evidence.

On the cross-appeal respecting costs, the court held that most individual defendants were properly treated as nominal parties, but found that one individual was sufficiently involved in the litigation to justify a costs award against him personally.

Waterfront property owners sought a declaration that their subdivision lots extended to the water’s edge of the Ottawa River despite a strip of land shown between the lots and the shoreline on a 1931 registered plan.

The defendants, successors in title to the original subdividers, claimed ownership of the strip and argued the plan intentionally reserved the land.

The court found a latent ambiguity in the subdivision plan and admitted extrinsic evidence to determine the intention of the original subdividers.

After reviewing historical surveying practices, expert evidence, and surrounding circumstances, the court concluded the rectilinear boundary on the plan represented an approximation of the high-water mark and that the subdividers believed the intervening land was public.

As the Crown patent extended to the water’s edge and there was no intention to reserve the strip, the lots were held to extend to the water’s edge.