Maurice J. Neirinck

The appellant challenged a summary judgment order that had dismissed most of his claims arising from an alleged agreement concerning the purchase, development, and later sale of a Toronto property.

The Court of Appeal held that the dispute turned on conflicting evidence and the central question of good faith, which required findings of fact, weighing of evidence, and implicit credibility determinations.

Those issues could not properly be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the summary judgment motion dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding an accounting between the parties arising out of a joint venture involving travel agencies.

The trial judge had reviewed disputed figures, accepted some from each party, and made credibility findings preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, noting the trial judge's detailed and even-handed assessment of the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant material supplier appealed a master's order discharging its construction lien and vacating its certificate of action.

The master had found the lien was registered out of time by applying the 'deemed completion' provision of the Construction Lien Act to the parties' prevenient arrangement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the 'deemed completion' provision does not apply to a prevenient arrangement.

Instead, the time limit for preserving a lien under a prevenient arrangement begins to run from the date of the last delivery of materials, meaning the appellant's lien was perfected in time.

The appellant public utility negligently underbilled the respondent dairy co-operative for electricity over a seven-year period due to a multiplier error.

When the utility sued to recover the arrears on a quantum meruit basis, the respondent raised the defence of equitable estoppel, having relied on the bills to set its own prices.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that unlike the legislation in Maritime Electric, the Ontario Power Corporation Act does not impose a positive statutory duty to collect arrears that would preclude the defence of estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.