Martine Shelly Wilson Garland

The applicants (vendors) sought the release of $40 million from an $80 million escrow account, arguing that the respondents (purchasers) failed to provide timely and sufficient notice of an indemnity claim related to an undisclosed $213 million guarantee.

The respondents contended that proper notice was given, the deadline was tolled by agreement, and relief from forfeiture should apply.

The court dismissed the application, finding that notice was timely given to the vendors, the Tolling Agreement suspended any relevant deadlines, and the notice content was sufficient.

The court also stated that it would have granted relief from forfeiture due to the applicants' conduct and the disproportionate impact.

Following a successful summary judgment for unpaid commissions, the court addressed costs submissions.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs until a demand letter and substantial indemnity thereafter, totaling $77,009.05.

The defendant argued for no costs due to an alleged illegal contract or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs, claiming the plaintiff's request was excessive.

The court found no reason to deprive the successful plaintiff of costs but determined that substantial indemnity was not warranted due to the nature of the settlement offer.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 and the proportionality principle, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $48,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the plaintiff's counsel's billed hours for correspondence and meetings were high for a single-issue matter.

The plaintiff, a physician, sued the defendant, also a physician, for physical and sexual assault.

The defendant alleged a prior consensual sexual affair and that the plaintiff's allegations were fabricated due to hospital privilege issues.

The court found the defendant's late disclosure of the alleged affair undermined his credibility.

Based on consistent plaintiff testimony, corroborating witnesses, DNA evidence from a rug matching the defendant's DNA from a mug, and an adverse inference drawn from the defendant's refusal to provide a DNA sample, the court found the sexual assault occurred.

The court awarded $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages and $25,000 in punitive damages, finding the assault was a material contributing factor to the plaintiff's psychological injury.

The defendant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation (OEFC), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff, The Power Limited Partnership's (PLP), claims of negligent misrepresentation, dishonest contract performance, and breach of a 2005 power purchase agreement (PPA).

The claims stemmed from the negotiation and execution of a 1999 PPA and a subsequent 2005 PPA, particularly concerning whether Order in Council (OIC) approval was required for the 1999 PPA and alleged concealment of its execution.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims.

It found no contractual obligation to support the bad faith claim, no deliberate dishonesty or negligence in misrepresentation, and that the 2005 PPA's entire agreement clause excluded prior representations.

Furthermore, the court determined that OIC approval was legally required for the 1999 PPA and that the claims were statute-barred by the applicable limitation periods.

The claims related to the 2005 PPA regarding occasional payment rates, capacity caps, and monthly targets were also dismissed based on clear contractual terms and lack of grounds for rectification.