Margot Marie Geneviève Leduc Pomerleau

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.