Oliver Bremer

The plaintiff purchased a farm property from the defendant vendors.

After closing, she discovered severe latent defects, including a history of basement flooding, a failed septic system, and that the house additions and garage were built without building permits.

The plaintiff sued the vendors for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation, and her title insurer for breach of contract after it denied coverage.

The court found the vendors liable for actively concealing defects and acting with reckless disregard.

The court also found the title insurer liable, holding that the lack of permits and unsafe building orders were covered risks under the policy.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the full replacement cost of the structures, special damages, general damages for mental distress, and punitive damages against the vendors.

The title insurer was held jointly and severally liable for the replacement costs and special damages, but was granted full indemnity from the vendors.

At a status hearing in a simplified procedure action arising from an alleged failed business venture, the defendants sought dismissal for delay after the plaintiff took no steps for more than two years following the close of pleadings.

The court held that the transitional provision in Rule 48.14(12) required application of the former version of Rule 48.14 because the status hearing had been scheduled before January 1, 2015.

Applying the Court of Appeal's status hearing jurisprudence, the court found the plaintiff's explanation for delay inadequate and noted the absence of any steps to advance the action.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking inspection by the court of numerous documents listed in Schedule B of the defendant municipality’s affidavit of documents, for which litigation privilege had been claimed.

The underlying action concerned property damage allegedly caused by flooding of the Batteaux River, with the plaintiff asserting claims including negligence, nuisance, trespass, and misfeasance in public office.

The plaintiff argued the documents might reveal a potential cover‑up and therefore should be reviewed to determine whether privilege properly applied.

The court held that the documents were created after the municipality received notice of a potential claim and were prepared for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation and obtaining legal advice.

The court concluded that the municipality had established litigation privilege and that speculation about possible misconduct did not defeat the privilege claim.

The appellants' sailboat was seized and stored at the respondent's facility.

A bailiff provided a notice of lien that included amounts unrelated to the respondent's storage charges.

The application judge found the notice valid and awarded the respondent a lien and judgment for $29,920.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the notice was invalid because it overstated the redemption amount by including third-party debts.

Consequently, under s. 4(6) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act, the respondent's lien was limited to 60 days of storage charges ($1,200), and the judgment was set aside.