Michel Sicotte

The plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries sustained by Sandra Bernier during a cycling event.

The defendants and third party brought summary judgment motions, arguing the action was barred by a signed waiver and voluntary assumption of risk.

The court found the waiver enforceable against the plaintiff, including her children's claims under the Family Law Act, and that it covered the alleged negligence, including negligent organization and road maintenance.

The court also found the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk.

The summary judgment motions were granted, and the action was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' pleadings or for summary judgment dismissing the claim for unpaid consulting invoices, and alternatively sought security for costs from the corporate plaintiff.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the claims against the individual defendant and one corporate defendant as they were not parties to the consulting agreement.

The claims against the main corporate defendant were directed to trial.

The court also ordered the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs in installments, finding it lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The applicant, a minority shareholder in a family-owned lumber company, brought an application for an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, seeking an order to force the respondents to buy out her shares or liquidate the company.

She alleged that the company's refusal to pay dividends despite being profitable, and its refusal to buy her shares, constituted oppressive conduct.

The respondents argued the claim was statute-barred and that the retention of capital was necessary due to the cyclical nature of the softwood lumber industry and the expiration of the Canada-US softwood lumber agreement.

The court found that while the claim regarding recent non-payment of dividends was not statute-barred, the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving dividends given the industry's challenges.

The court concluded that the company's conservative management style and decision to retain a high working capital were valid business decisions and did not constitute oppression.

The application was dismissed.

Following a motion regarding third and fourth party claims, the court determined costs.

The third party was unsuccessful in dismissing the defendants' third party claim, and the fourth parties were unsuccessful in striking the third party's fourth party claim.

The court found the third party's position regarding the third party claim to be improper and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants.

Although the fourth parties were unsuccessful, the court awarded them partial costs due to the third party's misleading conduct in issuing the fourth party claim.

The third party was ordered to pay costs to both the defendants and the fourth parties.

The third party brought a motion to either strike the third party claim against it or, alternatively, for leave to continue the fourth party claim against the fourth parties.

The action was originally commenced under the Construction Lien Act, which requires leave to add third or fourth parties.

Leave was not sought when the claims were issued.

The court found that the third party claim was saved by a previous order and acquiescence.

The court granted leave nunc pro tunc to issue the fourth party claim, finding it appropriate as the claim was issued within the limitation period and the action had practically moved to the ordinary track.