Mark A. Klaiman

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that declared a mortgage null and void based on promissory estoppel.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that promissory estoppel can only be used as a shield, not a sword, and the respondent had improperly used it to seek a declaration.

The Court set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial to determine whether there was consideration for the mortgage, as the trial judge had failed to make a finding on that issue.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim regarding a commercial lease.

The appellant argued that a lease was assigned to it or that an oral agreement for a five-year lease was reached.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no valid assignment in writing as required, and that the evidence did not support an oral agreement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged an order refusing to dismiss or stay an action against the federal Crown arising from alleged interference with an immigration consulting business conducted outside Ontario.

The court interpreted s. 21(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and held that the requirement that the claim arise in the province applies to both para. (a) and para. (b), including superior courts in provinces without county or district courts.

Relying on the French version of the provision and the legislative history, the court concluded that Ontario lacked jurisdiction because the claims did not arise in Ontario.

The appeal was allowed, the action was dismissed without prejudice to proceeding in Federal Court, and no costs were awarded.