6 total
The court dismissed a construction lien claim for equipment rental, finding no meeting of the minds to form a contract.
The plaintiff, 2283624 Ontario Limited, registered a construction lien against Performance Painting & Floor Coating Ltd. for alleged rental of sandblasting equipment, claiming approximately $58,760.
The plaintiff asserted an oral agreement for "fair value rental." The defendant, Performance, denied any contract, arguing there was no meeting of the minds and that the equipment was provided as a goodwill gesture for refurbishment, with a potential future purchase.
Performance had invested significantly in repairing the equipment.
The court found no contract for rental, noting the plaintiff was not in the rental business, there was no discussion of price or terms, and the lien was likely a tactic in a larger dispute.
The court dismissed the construction lien claim, ruling that equitable remedies were unavailable under the Construction Lien Act.
Applicant provided a reasonable explanation for missing an insurer's examination; withheld non-earner benefits ordered paid.
The Applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer terminated the benefits after the Applicant failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination.
The Applicant argued he did not receive the notice because he was moving between various addiction treatment facilities at the time.
The Tribunal found the Applicant's evidence credible and concluded he had a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.
The insurer was ordered to pay the withheld non-earner benefits for the period of non-compliance.
Appeal allowed; municipal contract granting developer a monopoly over sewage capacity was ultra vires and severed.
The plaintiff developer and the defendant municipality entered into a supplementary agreement regarding the enhancement of a sewage system.
The trial judge found that the municipality breached the agreement by allocating sewage capacity to a competing developer before the plaintiff's subdivision was completed, and awarded damages for lost commercial tenancies.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in his interpretation of the agreement.
The court found that the clause granting the plaintiff a monopoly over sewage capacity was ultra vires as it conflicted with the municipality's statutory obligation under s. 86(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 to supply sewage services where sufficient capacity exists.
The court severed the offending clause and concluded that the municipality did not breach the revised agreement.
Furthermore, the court held that the damages claimed for lost commercial tenancies were too remote.
The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.
Leave to appeal granted on litigation privilege and waiver issues.
The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order requiring production of an environmental report over which litigation privilege was claimed.
The report had been referenced in an affidavit and supported by an invoice attached as an exhibit.
The court considered whether referencing the report and attaching payment documents constituted a waiver of litigation privilege and whether the dominant purpose test had been properly applied.
Applying Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found conflicting authority and concluded there was reason to doubt the correctness of the earlier order compelling production.
Because the issues regarding litigation privilege and waiver had broader importance to litigation practice, leave to appeal was granted.
Municipality breached sewage capacity agreement by allowing competing development before subdivision completion.
A developer sued a municipality alleging breach of a supplementary subdivision agreement governing allocation of sewage capacity for a commercial and residential development.
The agreement provided that additional sewer capacity in the municipal system was reserved for the developer’s subdivision and that the municipality would not allocate capacity to lands outside the subdivision until the development was fully built out.
The municipality nevertheless allocated capacity to an adjacent development and expropriated a one‑foot reserve to allow connection.
The court interpreted the contractual language in light of the factual matrix and held the agreement granted the developer priority to available capacity.
The municipality breached the agreement by allocating capacity to the neighbouring development before completion of the subdivision.
The plaintiff proved loss‑of‑chance damages for lost leasing opportunities and was awarded compensatory damages, but punitive damages were denied.
Leave granted to amend defence to plead limitation period despite expired limitation.
A third party sought leave to amend his statement of defence to plead a limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 in response to a third party claim for contribution and indemnity alleging breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in a mortgage transaction.
The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that allowing it after the expiry of the limitation period would cause non-compensable prejudice by foreclosing potential claims against their former counsel.
The court held that although a presumption of prejudice arises where a limitation period has expired, special circumstances rebutted the presumption because the defendants had advance notice of the proposed amendment and sufficient time to pursue any related claims.
The court concluded that any prejudice was self-created and granted leave to amend the pleading pursuant to Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
