Michael Woods

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing that ambiguities in the written agreement required viva voce evidence and credibility findings at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and security terms, which rejected the appellants' claim that they never intended to guarantee the principal amount.

The court found no genuine issue for trial requiring further evidence.

The moving party sought summary judgment for repayment of $650,000 advanced under a joint venture agreement for the purchase and resale of motor vehicles.

The responding party argued the agreement was ambiguous and did not expressly guarantee repayment of the capital investment, asserting that contractual interpretation required a trial.

Applying the summary judgment framework and principles of contractual interpretation, the court found the agreement clearly required that the initial capital investment not be used to absorb losses and be returned upon termination of the venture.

Considering both the contractual language and surrounding circumstances, including collateral mortgages granted as security, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted for the return of the $650,000 investment.

The appellant abandoned its appeal on consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered the appeal abandoned and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $3,500.

The appellants succeeded on their appeal and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellants costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the costs of the appeal and motion for leave to appeal at $7,000, costs of the Divisional Court appeal at $3,500, and restoring the motion judge's costs order of $1,000.

The appellant real estate brokerage sued for commissions allegedly owing on the sale of a nursing home.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the individual defendants, who were the sole shareholders, officers, and directors of the corporate defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding breach of contract, unjust enrichment, or inducing breach of contract, as there was no contract with the individuals personally and no evidence they signed in a personal capacity.

The appellant owners entered into a construction contract to build a house.

They overpaid the general contractor, who subsequently failed to pay the respondent subcontractors.

The subcontractors registered construction liens and claimed the owners were liable for the overpayment amount in addition to the 10 percent statutory holdback under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the owners' appeal, holding that under section 23(2) of the Act, an owner's liability to lien claimants is strictly limited to the statutory holdback they are required to retain, regardless of any overpayments made to the contractor.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the motions judge, arguing that the judge erred in refusing an adjournment and in reaching his legal conclusion.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the exercise of the motions judge's discretion to refuse the adjournment, nor any reason to interfere with the legal conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to return a deposit paid by the respondent for a franchise.

The trial judge had found substantial non-disclosure of material facts amounting to fraudulent misrepresentation, rendering the agreement void.

The appellants argued the trial judge failed to articulate the proper burden of proof for fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an appellate court should not presume a trial judge failed to apply the correct legal test merely because it was not explicitly stated in the reasons.

The court also upheld the finding that there was no meeting of minds on essential terms.