Marshall Reinhart

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment against two corporate defendants for $180,054.08, alleging conversion and fraud related to a power of sale and a second mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was insufficient evidence to determine the exact amounts owing to the second mortgagee or the secured amount of her assigned mortgage.

The court emphasized that a complete record and full accounting were necessary, and partial summary judgment would not avoid a full trial given the preliminary stage of the action and other related proceedings.

The applicant sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file additional affidavit materials for a pending partial summary judgment motion, after cross-examining the respondents' affiant.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not including the evidence initially.

The court emphasized that Rule 39.02(2) is not intended to correct deficiencies highlighted by cross-examination or to bolster a case due to an unexpected adjournment, and that parties are obliged to put their best case forward before cross-examination.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which dismissed their claims against Tarion Warranty Corporation for alleged defects in their new home, including foundation issues, basement moisture, and squeaky floors.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Court found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of civil engineers and construction managers, that the home was built in accordance with the design and not too close to the water table.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they made fraudulent misrepresentations inducing the respondents to purchase a restaurant business.

The trial judge ordered rescission, general damages, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and punitive damages.

However, the Court reduced the general damages by $70,000 due to a lack of evidence for a management fee claim.

The Court also reduced the costs award, holding that awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the same conduct that justified punitive damages amounted to double compensation.

The respondent tobacco company sought a declaration that s. 6 of the Saskatchewan Tobacco Control Act, which bans the display of tobacco products in premises where persons under 18 are permitted, was inoperative due to the federal paramountcy doctrine.

The respondent argued it conflicted with s. 30 of the federal Tobacco Act, which allows retailers to display tobacco products.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provincial legislation was not inoperative.

The Court found no operational conflict, as retailers could comply with both by either not admitting minors or not displaying the products, and the provincial law did not frustrate the federal legislative purpose of addressing a national public health problem.