3 total
The court dismissed a motion to stay proceedings, finding the dispute fell outside the arbitration clause and the motion was brought with undue delay.
The defendant, Karen Pacey, brought a motion to stay a proceeding initiated by Allied Accounting & Tax Services Limited and Allied Associates LLP, arguing that the dispute fell under an arbitration clause in a Shareholders’ Agreement (SA).
The plaintiffs alleged breaches of confidentiality and non-competition provisions in both the SA and a Representative’s Contract, the latter lacking an arbitration clause.
The court found that the SA's arbitration clause was qualified by other provisions explicitly referring to "court" for equitable relief, indicating an exclusion for such disputes from arbitration.
Additionally, the court found that the defendant unduly delayed in bringing the motion for a stay, which would have been a separate ground for refusal.
The motion to stay the proceeding was dismissed.
The court dismissed the respondent's claims for adverse possession and prescriptive easement, granting the applicants a permanent injunction.
This case involves a property dispute between abutting neighbours concerning claims of adverse possession and prescriptive easement.
The applicants sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from trespassing and harassing them, and declarations regarding property rights.
The respondent asserted ownership by adverse possession and a right of way by prescriptive easement over portions of the applicants' land.
The court dismissed the respondent's claims, finding he failed to establish the necessary elements for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement, particularly given the conversion of lands to Land Titles, issues of permissive use, and unity of ownership.
A permanent injunction was granted, restraining the respondent from interfering with the applicants' property.
Successful bankruptcy applicant awarded $14,000 in partial indemnity costs.
A costs decision following an application in bankruptcy proceedings concerning the continuing validity of an absolute discharge order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs, while the respondents argued that the conduct of opposing counsel warranted costs in their favour or that the claimed costs were excessive.
The court rejected allegations that counsel had improperly accused opposing counsel of fraud on the court and found no basis to deny costs to the successful party.
Although the applicant was entitled to costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs given the novel circumstances and the sympathetic position of the respondent.
The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $14,000 on an all-inclusive basis.
