The plaintiff, Fadia Mohammad, sought summary judgment for payment of a life insurance death benefit following the death of her husband, Mahmoud Mohammad.

The defendant insurer, Manulife, denied the claim, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by the deceased regarding his immigration status (by providing a Social Insurance Number, SIN) and his criminal past (non-disclosure) on the application form.

The court found that providing a SIN did not constitute a misrepresentation of immigration status.

Furthermore, the court held that there was no duty to disclose immigration status or criminal history because the insurer's application form did not ask questions to elicit this information, implying these facts were not material.

Even if material, the non-disclosure was not fraudulent.

The court emphasized that an insurer's failure to inquire about specific facts may indicate those facts are not material, and relying on non-disclosure in such circumstances can be contrary to the insurer's good faith duty.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendant's motion was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs, judgment creditors of 798839 Ontario Limited ("39"), brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that 39 held a valid and subsisting interest in mining claims under a 1988 option agreement with Great Lakes Nickel Limited ("GLN").

The Plaintiffs argued that 39 had acquired an 80% interest or, alternatively, a 60% interest, despite only expending approximately $1.6 million of the required $2 million.

The court, interpreting the plain wording of the option agreement, found that 39 was required to invest the full $2 million to acquire an 80% interest, failing which the option terminated and 39 acquired no interest.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion, granting summary judgment in favour of GLN on this issue, while declining to address other issues like limitations due to the partial nature of the summary judgment.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment to enforce an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property, claiming breach and seeking specific performance.

The Defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing no agreement was reached.

The court found that the parties never had a meeting of the minds (consensus ad idem) regarding an essential term, the "renovation clause," which was ambiguous and had different interpretations by each party.

Consequently, no valid contract was formed.

The Plaintiff's motion was dismissed, the action was dismissed, and the deposit was ordered to be returned to the Plaintiff.

The court also hypothetically addressed specific performance, finding the property unique.