Matthew J. Lambert

The applicant, the sole beneficiary of her late son's intestate estate, brought an application to remove the respondent, her other son, as estate trustee.

The respondent failed to communicate with the applicant, delayed selling the estate's primary asset because he hoped to purchase it himself, rented the property without consultation, and failed to provide an accounting.

The court found that the respondent acted in his own self-interest, ignored the wishes of the sole beneficiary, and endangered the administration of the estate.

The application was granted, the respondent was removed as estate trustee, and a replacement trustee was appointed.

The appellant obtained a British Columbia judgment against the respondent, which was registered in Ontario.

The appellant delayed enforcing the judgment for over six years because he believed there was little equity in the respondent's properties.

When the appellant sought leave to issue a writ of seizure and sale, the motion judge dismissed the motion, inferring that the appellant had waived his rights and that the respondent had detrimentally relied on the delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The appellant's explanation for the delay was plausible, and the respondent could not have reasonably believed the appellant waived his right to enforce the $333,717.50 judgment, nor did she detrimentally rely on such a belief.

The plaintiff commercial tenant sued the defendant landlord and its principal for damages after the landlord refused to consent to a lease assignment to a prospective purchaser of the tenant's business.

The plaintiff alleged promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

The defendants moved for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a sword to found a claim, the alleged misrepresentation was a future promise rather than a statement of fact, and there was no evidence of unlawful interference.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to transfer a related Small Claims Court action was also dismissed.

The parties made written submissions regarding the costs of a motion on which the defendants were successful.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $32,434.14, arguing their offer to settle engaged Rule 49.10.

The court found the offer to settle did not engage Rule 49.10 because it contained stipulations not reflected in the final disposition.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs, but reduced the claimed amount due to duplication of counsel's efforts and the principle of proportionality, fixing costs at $18,295.86.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against a residential property, an order preserving the property, and an order that the proceeds of sale of another property be paid into court.

The dispute arose between the estate of a deceased sister and the surviving sister over properties originally owned by their mother.

The court dismissed the motion for a CPL and payment into court, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a serious prospect of ultimate success or risk of dissipation.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion to permit the sale of the property, provided half the net proceeds are paid into court.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for vacant possession and payment under four mortgages in default.

The defendants argued that the guarantees and collateral mortgages signed by the spouses were unenforceable due to undue influence by their husbands.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting that the spouses had received independent legal advice and signed the documents despite advice to the contrary.

The court held there was no evidence of actual or presumed undue influence.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering monetary judgments and writs of possession.

The plaintiff, a 66-year-old labourer with over 12 years of service, was terminated purportedly for cause after being arrested for off-duty criminal charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish just cause, as the criminal charges were unrelated to the workplace, there was no evidence of reputational harm, and the allegations of dishonesty and cumulative discipline were unfounded.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' reasonable notice.

The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claims against the individual manager was granted, as the manager acted within the scope of his employment.

The parties separated after a 13-year relationship and 10-year marriage.

The applicant sought an equal division of the proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned farm, while the respondent argued for an unequal division because he paid the majority of the down payment.

The court ordered the property sold and the proceeds divided equally, finding that an equal division was not unconscionable under section 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment, child support arrears, and ongoing spousal support of $750 per month, while declining to order occupational rent due to a set-off against mortgage payments.