Martin Raymond Kaplan

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal which rescinded a previous order requiring the respondents to contribute over $2 million toward mining development expenses.

The Tribunal had found that an oral agreement between the parties' predecessors established the respondents' interest as a 'free carried, perpetual, non-contributing' interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence and conclusion that a binding oral agreement existed.

The appellants sought to transfer a proceeding before the Mining and Lands Tribunal to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent had commenced the Tribunal proceeding under section 181(2) of the Mining Act to require the appellants to pay their share of expenditures for mining development.

The appellants argued that an alleged oral agreement absolved them of any obligation to contribute and that this contract matter should be adjudicated by the Superior Court as a preliminary issue.

The application judge refused the transfer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to transfer, finding that the Tribunal had specialized expertise in mining matters and that section 181(4) of the Mining Act provided the appellants with a procedure to raise their oral agreement defence before the Tribunal.

The appellant appealed a bankruptcy order granted under s. 42(1)(j) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent, a diamond merchant, brought the petition after the appellant failed to pay for diamonds.

The appellant argued the bankruptcy judge erred in finding it had debts with other creditors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant had outstanding liabilities to other suppliers.

The testator left an estate consisting largely of real property.

The residue was to be kept invested, with the net income paid to his widow for life, and the remainder to his children.

The widow, receiving little income from the real property, sought a direction that the executors convert the real property, relying on the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule in Howe v. Lord Dartmouth, which requires trustees to convert wasting or unproductive personalty to deal even-handedly between life tenants and remaindermen, does not apply to real property.

The Court declined to extend the rule to real property, stating that such a change should be left to the legislature.

The widow's claim for notional income was also dismissed as there was no duty to convert the realty.