Nishikawa

The plaintiff, a neighbour, sued the estate of John Zigomanis in negligence after a house explosion caused by John's son, Paul, who lived in the house and died in the explosion.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion to determine a question of law, arguing the estate did not own the house and owed no duty of care.

Relying on a companion decision, the court found that legal title had reverted to Paul prior to the explosion, and the estate's payment of utility bills did not create a relationship of proximity.

The court concluded the estate owed no duty of care and dismissed the claim against it.

The applicant brought a motion opposing the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's certificate of assessment of her former solicitors' accounts.

The applicant had retained the solicitors for a potential oppression claim related to a family law proceeding.

The Assessment Officer reduced the accounts slightly but largely upheld them, finding the matter was of above-average complexity and the fees were reasonable.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding no palpable and overriding errors or errors in principle in the Assessment Officer's application of the relevant factors or factual findings.

The certificate of assessment was confirmed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

The defendant failed to close the transaction, alleging he was the victim of mortgage fraud by his agent and could not obtain financing.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement and that the alleged fraud did not excuse his failure to close.

The plaintiffs were awarded the $75,000 deposit and $308,688.31 in damages for the difference in the resale price and carrying costs.

The court also dismissed the defendant's claim for relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff franchisor sought costs following a successful motion for summary judgment against the defendant franchisee.

The franchise agreement contained a provision entitling the franchisor to costs on a solicitor and client basis.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the indemnity only applied to third-party claims and upheld the commercial bargain.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicants sought the partition and sale of two industrial properties owned by corporations in which they held shares, following a breakdown in the business relationship with the respondents.

The respondents argued that the applicants had no interest in the land because the properties were owned by the corporations.

The court dismissed the application, holding that shareholders do not have a possessory interest in property owned by a corporation, and therefore the applicants had no prima facie right to partition under the Partition Act.

The plaintiff franchisor brought an action against the defendant, the sole shareholder of a former corporate franchisee, to recover over $1.7 million in costs awarded to the franchisor in a prior class action commenced by the franchisee.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment relying on an indemnification provision in the franchise agreement and a personal guarantee signed by the defendant.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding the defendant personally liable under both the indemnification provision and the guarantee.

The court also dismissed the defendant's cross-motion, rejecting arguments that the claim was statute-barred or previously released.

The defendant son brought a motion under Rule 45.02 for an order requiring the plaintiff mother to pay into court all rents received from a disputed property, as well as occupancy rent, pending the outcome of her action for a declaration of beneficial ownership.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that anticipated future rental revenues and disputed occupancy rent do not constitute a 'specific fund' within the meaning of the rule.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, who relied on the rental income to pay for the property's utilities and expenses.

The plaintiff sued the defendant shipping company for lost profits after a software update allegedly deleted a custom mark-up feature, causing the plaintiff to underbill its clients for two years.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, relying on an exclusion clause in the software agreement that barred claims for lost profits.

The court granted the motion, finding the exclusion clause applied, was not unconscionable, and did not violate public policy.

The court also granted the defendant's counterclaim for unpaid invoices.