Muriel Moscovich

The plaintiff, Terrace Bay Pulp Inc., moved to set aside a registrar's order dismissing its action for delay, which was the second such dismissal.

The motion was brought under Rule 37.14.

The court applied the four Reid factors (explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness, and prejudice to defendants) contextually.

It found the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, particularly given the complex multi-party litigation, the need to add parties, and difficulties obtaining documents due to CCAA proceedings and asset sale.

The court found no presumption of prejudice arose and no actual prejudice was demonstrated by the opposing fourth party, ABB Inc. The court also considered recent amendments to Rule 48.14 as a relevant factor favoring the plaintiff.

The motion was granted, setting aside the dismissal order and establishing a new timetable.

In a reference arising from a contractual dispute over a land sale and alleged charitable donation receipt entitlement, the court was asked to determine the fair market value of agricultural lands purchased for future institutional use.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for the defendant’s failure to issue a charitable tax receipt based on the alleged difference between fair market value and purchase price.

The court considered competing expert appraisal evidence using the sales comparison approach and evaluated comparable land transactions within the local market.

Rejecting certain comparables and institutional-use assumptions, the court found the highest and best use involved potential future residential development subject to planning processes and servicing constraints.

The fair market value was determined to be $50,200 per acre, totaling $1,708,456.60.

The appellant surveyors prepared a reference plan that incorrectly portrayed a right of way as a straight line, failing to show a curve that circumvented a rock outcrop.

The reference plan was deposited on title.

A dispute arose between the neighbouring property owners over the use of the road.

The surveyors brought a motion to rectify the reference plan under section 160 of the Land Titles Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, holding that the registered title was indefeasible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a reference plan does not independently create an interest in land and that the court has jurisdiction to rectify the boundaries of the right of way.

The plaintiffs and defendants, two brothers and their respective holding companies, engaged in a complex corporate divorce involving a transportation business, ProNorth.

The court determined that the brothers were equal 50/50 shareholders in the holding company, rejecting the defendant's claim of a 62/38 split.

The court found the defendant brother engaged in oppressive conduct by wrongfully excluding the plaintiff from a shareholders' meeting and removing him as a director.

As a remedy, the court ordered the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's shares at a fair value of $4,455,000, based on an en bloc valuation of $8.91 million.

The court also resolved disputes over several jointly owned properties, ordering the defendant to purchase the plaintiff's interests in properties used by the business, and directing the partition and sale of others.

The court awarded the plaintiff $180,000 in damages for exclusion from management, offset by $105,000 awarded to the company for the plaintiff's wrongful detention of a corporate aircraft.

Finally, the court found the company's accountant breached his fiduciary duty to the plaintiff by swearing an affidavit contrary to the corporate records, awarding nominal damages of $100.

A motion sought rectification of a reference plan and land titles register to correct a surveying mistake that placed a right-of-way over a rock outcrop rather than along the existing gravel road historically used for access.

The applicants argued the surveyor failed to follow the original owner’s instructions and relied on equitable rectification principles based on common mistake.

The court held that rectification would interfere with the registered interests of a bona fide purchaser for value and was therefore barred by the Land Titles Act and the doctrine of indefeasibility of title.

Under the Torrens system, the register is conclusive and equitable remedies cannot override registered rights acquired by purchasers.

The motion to rectify the reference plan and title abstract was dismissed.