3 total
Summary judgment Motion granted
The Starcall Companies brought a motion for summary judgment to recover monies paid under protest to Bell Mobility, disputing an alleged debt and arguing it was statute-barred.
Bell Mobility counter-sought summary judgment.
The court found Bell Mobility failed to prove the debt was outstanding and that, even if it existed, it was not a demand obligation.
Consequently, the Starcall Companies' motion for summary judgment was granted, and Bell Mobility's claim was dismissed.
Appeal of summary judgment dismissed; alleged oral land purchase agreement lacked consensus on essential terms.
The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to purchase land.
The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial because essential terms, specifically the assumption of obligations under a Cost Sharing Agreement, were not agreed upon, and there was no written memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the appellant's self-serving affidavit evidence, which contradicted its own draft agreement, was insufficient to create a triable issue.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissal of summary judgment denied as no conflicting decisions existed.
The defendant, Zurich Canada, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a simplified rules proceeding.
The motion judge had found a live issue regarding whether a confidentiality clause was an implied term of a settlement and whether the defendant was liable for the actions of its counsel.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issues of general importance extending beyond the immediate parties.
