Neil Wilson

The plaintiff, a former executive at a property development company, claimed a 5% interest in the profit from the sale of a real estate development project.

The defendant argued the oral agreement was too uncertain to be enforceable and that any such interest was extinguished by a full and final release signed upon the plaintiff's termination.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the agreement was sufficiently certain and that the release, when read with the incorporated settlement correspondence, preserved the plaintiff's 5% interest.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,372,992 in damages based on his expert's calculation of the profit from the sale of the lands.

The parties, two brothers who jointly own a cement delivery business through separate corporations, reached a settlement in their oppression applications involving a shotgun buy-sell agreement.

A dispute arose regarding the payment of legal fees incurred by one brother (DN) from the business's revenues, which had been the historical practice.

The other brother (GN) refused to transfer funds to pay a $364,346.96 legal invoice, arguing the fees were unreasonable and disproportionate to his own.

The court found that GN's refusal breached the status quo agreed upon in the settlement and ordered GN to transfer the funds.

The court also dismissed GN's request to refer the legal accounts for assessment, finding he lacked standing under section 9 of the Solicitors Act.

The defendant moved for a third adjournment of a five-year-old civil trial, citing the childcare responsibilities of counsel during the third wave COVID-19 lockdown.

The plaintiff opposed further delay, noting the defendant had also served a late expert report during the interregnum.

The court granted a short adjournment to June 2021 to accommodate counsel's family responsibilities, making the new date peremptory to the defendant, but declined to delay the trial until September to accommodate counsel's competing arbitration commitments.

The applicant condominium corporation sought relief from an allegedly oppressive shared facilities agreement (CRA) imposed by the declarant developer, and brought several actions for construction deficiencies and property management breaches.

The court found the CRA produced an oppressive result due to the conflicted manager's conduct and amended the agreement to allow the condominium to terminate the manager without cause.

The court also ruled on multiple summary judgment motions regarding construction deficiencies, dismissing the first action as a nullity for lack of statutory notice to owners, and granting summary judgment on various specific deficiency claims based on limitation periods and warranty coverage.

Damages were awarded for specific proven deficiencies and against the former property manager for failing to maintain insurance records.