Mr. N. Wainwright

The moving parties (respondents in the main application) brought a motion to strike out the responding party's application, arguing that the dispute over the interpretation of a business sale agreement should proceed by way of an action rather than an application.

The underlying dispute involved the location of a fourth sewage site to be developed under the contract.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the application framework under Rule 14.05(3)(d) was appropriate for contractual interpretation, even if some factual context was required, and that it was not plain and obvious that the application could not succeed.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of a jointly-owned property under the Partition Act.

The respondent, who had been in sole occupation and receiving rental income for five years, did not oppose the sale but disputed terms regarding the realtor, property taxes, bidding rights, and costs.

The court ordered the sale of the property, requiring an arms-length realtor, allowing the respondent to bid, and ordering the respondent to pay $2,000 in costs to the applicant.

The net proceeds of sale were to be equally divided, with any tax liens paid by the responsible party.