6 total
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's reasons for foreclosing defence were discernible from the record.
The appellants appealed an order that foreclosed their ability to defend the action, arguing the motion judge failed to provide reasons.
The Court of Appeal agreed that reasons were warranted for such a serious decision, but found the reasons were discernible from the record.
The appeal was dismissed for the reasons previously given by the court in refusing a stay pending appeal.
No Contract A between general contractor and unsolicited subcontractor bidder.
The plaintiff, a masonry subcontractor, sued the defendant general contractor for breach of a Contract A formed during a public construction tendering process, alleging the defendant was obligated to use it as the masonry subcontractor after naming it on its tender form submitted to the school board.
The court found no contract existed between the parties because the defendant never issued a call for tenders to subcontractors and no bid depository system was in place, meaning the Ron Engineering Contract A framework did not apply.
The court further held that even if a contract existed, the plaintiff's bid was materially non-compliant with the tender specifications, and the plaintiff failed to prove it suffered any damages given its inability to isolate expected profit from overhead costs and its mitigation income from other projects.
Motion for leave for judicial review of adjudicator's decision dismissed with costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,907.60.
Stay pending appeal denied in promissory-note collection dispute after repeated disclosure non-compliance.
The appellants sought a stay pending appeal from an order striking their statement of defence for non-compliance with documentary disclosure obligations and a prior peremptory order.
The motion judge held the proposed appeal was weak, found no irreparable harm, and concluded the balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured refusal of a stay.
The court ordered the just and equitable winding up of two deadlocked real estate development corporations.
The applicants sought the winding up of two Ontario corporations (NewCo), which were equally owned by three holding companies engaged in real estate development.
The corporations were governed by a shareholder agreement requiring unanimous consent for fundamental changes and providing for dispute resolution through a Casting Voter.
The parties became deadlocked over multiple issues including the appointment of corporate counsel, the appointment of a Casting Voter, and various property development decisions.
The court found that the parties' rights, expectations, and obligations to work cooperatively had not been fulfilled, that the dispute resolution process was inoperable, and that the relationship had broken down irreparably.
The court ordered the winding up of the corporations, appointed a Sales Officer and corporate counsel, and awarded costs to the applicants.
Motion to quash judicial review of subdivision approval denied; public interest standing and jurisdiction arguable.
The developer and the municipality brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review of a Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval.
They argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to the statutory appeal scheme and that the applicant lacked public interest standing.
The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was ousted or that standing should be denied.
The court also partially granted a motion to strike portions of the applicant's affidavit, striking two expert reports but allowing correspondence and video evidence to proceed to the panel.
