Michael S. Deverett

The plaintiff corporation claimed a 5% commission on sales made by the defendant balloon wholesaler to a major retail chain, alleging an oral agreement was reached after the plaintiff introduced the parties and helped strategize the sales program.

The defendant denied the agreement, arguing the plaintiff had minimal involvement and offering a nominal fee.

The court found that an oral agreement for a 5% commission on gross sales did exist, based on the parties' correspondence, past relationship, and the plaintiff's significant role in securing the account.

The court awarded the plaintiff $350,000 in damages, representing commissions for a reasonable five-year period.

Applicants sought to set aside a will that disinherited one daughter and left the estate to the other daughter and her children.

The court accepted uncontradicted extrinsic affidavit evidence that the testator's reason for the disinheritance was that the disinherited daughter had a child with a Caucasian man.

Applying the public policy doctrine, the court held the racist basis for the testamentary disposition rendered the will contrary to public policy, notwithstanding that the will's text was facially neutral.

The will was set aside, an intestacy resulted under the Succession Law Reform Act, and the estate was to be divided equally between the daughters.

The appellant wife appealed a temporary order requiring her to advance $100,000 to the respondent husband for interim disbursements and legal fees.

The wife argued that the motions judge erred in his discretion and that there was a lack of procedural fairness because the notice of motion did not specifically request interim disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and that the motions judge appropriately exercised his discretion given the serious credibility issues and the need for documentary disclosure.

The plaintiff law firm appealed a Master's order dismissing its action for delay at a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The plaintiff argued the Master erred by failing to balance the preference for determining cases on their merits against the need to discourage delay, and by rejecting its explanation that the file 'fell through the cracks'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that recent appellate jurisprudence establishes the primary focus at a status hearing is whether the plaintiff has an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Master applied the correct legal test and made no palpable or overriding error of fact in finding the plaintiff abdicated its responsibility to prosecute the action.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensive discovery relief in a contractual dispute, including permission to create a mirror copy of the defendant’s computer hard drive, disclosure of detailed information regarding the defendant’s electronic document searches, enforcement of alleged undertakings, and permission to contact the defendant’s IT manager.

The court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure require production of relevant documents but do not require a party to disclose the methodology used to search for those documents.

The plaintiff’s request for a mirror copy of the defendant’s hard drive was rejected as speculative and invasive, absent evidence that relevant undisclosed documents existed.

The court also found that the undertakings relied upon by the plaintiff had either been fulfilled or had not been given as alleged, and that contacting the defendant’s IT manager directly would breach the Rules of Professional Conduct because he was involved in the conduct of the litigation.

At a contested status hearing, the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for delay.

The action alleged breach of contract and negligence arising from the defendant’s failure to publish advertisements in telephone directories.

Applying the test from appellate authority, the court considered whether the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether the defendant would suffer non‑compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court held that explanations including lack of communication from defence counsel, internal file management failures, and the absence of an external client were not reasonable explanations for over two years of inactivity.

As the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the litigation delay and did not fully establish absence of prejudice, the action was dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order denying her individual party status in a class action settlement.

The respondents argued that the appeal lacked merit based on previous case law.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the delay and concluded that the issue of standing should be decided by a full panel.

The motion to extend time was granted.

The deceased transferred his residence to his sons in trust to be used for his and his wife's maintenance if required, with the remainder to his five children.

The trustees later sold the residence and mistakenly transferred the proceeds of $205,342.63 to the deceased.

After the deceased's death, his widow (the appellant) argued the funds belonged to his estate.

The motions judge held that the transfer was a breach of trust made under a mistake of law, and that the trust was entitled to recover the funds secured by an equitable lien.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the widow's appeal, finding that the deceased knew or should have known of the breach of trust, and that his estate would be unjustly enriched if permitted to retain the funds.