Matthew J.A. Benson

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant for breach of a renovation contract.

The defendant failed to complete the work to a reasonable standard, requiring the plaintiff to hire another contractor for remedial work.

The court granted default judgment for compensatory damages representing the cost of completing the work ($146,775.63) plus pre-judgment interest and fixed costs of $5,000.

The plaintiff's claim for punitive damages was denied, as the compensatory damages were deemed sufficient to achieve the objectives of retribution, denunciation, and deterrence.

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations regarding environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that the plaintiffs knew of the contamination upon purchase, the limitation period had expired, and the claim lacked sufficient particulars for negligence, strict liability, and statutory claims under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were not barred by delay or pleading over, the plaintiffs' knowledge of contamination was not fatal, the limitation period issue required evidence, and the claim provided sufficient particulars for all causes of action, including novel applications of strict liability.

This case concerns an application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which was challenged by the deceased's husband and daughter on grounds of undue influence and testamentary fraud.

The objectors alleged that the deceased's son and his wife fraudulently influenced the deceased to disinherit her daughter and significantly reduce her husband's inheritance by instilling false beliefs about the daughter's husband and the husband's financial well-being.

The court found no evidence that the son and his wife perpetrated or encouraged these alleged falsehoods.

The deceased's testamentary changes were determined to be her own decisions, made gradually over time, based on her long-standing concerns about protecting the family's wealth from her son-in-law, and after receiving independent professional advice.

The court dismissed the objections, declared the wills valid, and granted the application for the Certificate of Appointment.

The applicant, a sub-contractor, sought summary judgment against the respondent directors for breach of trust under the Construction Act, seeking to declare the claim not compromised by a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The applicant argued that the respondents' use of trust funds for operations constituted misrepresentation or wrongful conduct, allowing the claim to survive the proposal's compromise of director claims.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, particularly regarding the respondents' knowledge of the breach of trust, whether their conduct was misrepresentation or wrongful/oppressive, the parties' understanding of the consumer proposal's "quittance" and whether Construction Act trust provisions survive a consumer proposal.

Credibility assessment and a more fulsome evidentiary record were deemed necessary.

The appellants appealed an order striking their Statement of Defence for failing to comply with interlocutory orders and documentary disclosure obligations.

The motion judge had found deliberate non-compliance over 2.5 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upholding the striking of the Statement of Defence, finding the motion judge's decision was open on the record, legally sound, appropriate, and proportionate given the lengthy and deliberate delay.

The court also dismissed the argument for a "last chance" order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the costs of the action from $5,000 to $3,000 due to a calculation error.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a trial where the plaintiffs were largely successful in their claim on a promissory note and in defending against most set-off claims and a counterclaim.

The plaintiffs were awarded $256,332.07 (including pre-judgment interest) and had beaten their formal Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court considered the principles of indemnity, promotion of settlement, proportionality, and reasonableness under Rule 57.

Despite the defendants' arguments for a lower award, the court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $100,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, applying partial indemnity before the offer and substantial indemnity after.

The plaintiffs sold a construction business to the defendants, with a portion of the purchase price secured by a vendor take back promissory note.

The defendants refused to pay the note, claiming set-offs for intercompany debt, retained bank balances, and a bookkeeping error that overstated accounts receivable.

The court held that the purchase price was fixed and not subject to adjustment for the intercompany debt, and that the bookkeeping error did not constitute a breach of warranty.

However, the court allowed a set-off for the retained bank balance, which the plaintiffs conceded should have been transferred on closing, reducing the amount owing on the promissory note.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for breach of contract, breach of trust, unjust enrichment, and breach of the Canada Business Corporations Act on the basis that the claims were statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued that an agreement reached in 2016 extended the limitation period and that a trial was necessary to resolve factual disputes.

The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the material facts regarding discoverability were not in dispute.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to act with reasonable diligence to discover its claims and that the action, commenced nearly four years after the work was completed, was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to adjourn a three-week trial scheduled to commence in one month, citing the plaintiffs' late production of documents and two expert reports.

The plaintiffs agreed to withdraw one expert report if the trial proceeded.

The court applied the factors from Ariston Realty and Igbinosun, finding that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating why they could not proceed or how their defence would be significantly compromised.

The court emphasized the prejudice of delay to the plaintiffs in an eight-year-old action and dismissed the motion, without prejudice to the defendants seeking relief at trial regarding the late productions.

The plaintiffs, owners of a commercial property, sued the defendants for environmental contamination allegedly emanating from a neighbouring gas station.

Pending trial, the plaintiffs brought a motion for an order under the oppression remedy of the Business Corporations Act requiring the defendants to pay $8,000,000 into court as security, or alternatively, a Mareva injunction freezing the defendants' assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs, as potential creditors with an unliquidated claim, did not qualify as complainants under the oppression remedy.

The court also denied the Mareva injunction, concluding there was no real risk of asset dissipation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act requiring the defendants to pay $8 million into court as security for an environmental contamination claim.

Prior to the motion, the parties exchanged offers to settle.

While they agreed on the security amount, they disagreed on when and how the costs of the motion would be determined.

The defendants argued a settlement was reached and brought a motion to enforce it, claiming costs were a collateral issue.

The court found that costs were an essential term of the settlement offers and, because there was no unequivocal acceptance of all terms, no binding settlement was reached.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed.

Following the release of its reasons on appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

The successful respondent, the Municipality of Clarington, was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed an order permanently enjoining them from operating a scrap yard and storing white goods on their property, arguing they had a legal non-conforming use.

On appeal, they raised new arguments based on the Supreme Court's decision in Saint-Romuald and accessory use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that these issues were not raised at trial and the evidentiary record was incomplete, making it unfair to the municipality to order a new trial.