Paul E. Trenker

The moving party sought summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement arising from an alleged failure by the responding parties to comply with an accepted offer.

The motion was brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reviewed documentary evidence and affidavits relating to whether the moving party’s contractual rights had been assigned to a corporate entity prior to the settlement agreement.

The court concluded that the evidentiary record raised a genuine issue requiring a trial, including questions regarding the assignment of rights and the parties’ conduct following the purported settlement.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.

A corporate plaintiff sought recovery of $96,500 allegedly transferred without authorization from its account to another corporation’s account to cover overdrafts.

The defendant credit union maintained the transfers were authorized by the principal of the plaintiff company and documented through telephone instructions and account records.

The court found that the transfers were authorized and that the plaintiff had received monthly statements and supporting documentation reflecting the transactions without timely objection.

In any event, the claim was barred both by the contractual verification provision requiring disputes within 30 days and by the applicable six‑year limitation period.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to return $41,743.15 paid by the respondent under a written agreement for a leasehold interest.

The respondent had defaulted on payments, prompting the appellant to cancel the contract and sell the interest to a third party.

The trial judge characterized the agreement as a purchase and sale without a forfeiture clause and ordered the return of the funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge committed an error of law by failing to consider the appellant's evidence that the contract was a 'rent to own' agreement where payments were non-refundable rent.

The appellants, owners of two condominium units, appealed a judgment enforcing a condominium declaration that restricted occupancy to a 'one family residence'.

The appellants had rented their units to multiple unrelated students.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the restriction was valid under the Condominium Act, 1998, and did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The court distinguished land use planning principles from condominium governance and upheld the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision that overturned an Ontario Court of Justice placement order returning her twin boys to her care.

The children had suffered severe physical abuse by their father shortly after birth.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal judge erred by conducting a de novo review and substituting his own factual findings without identifying a palpable and overriding error.

However, the Court of Appeal also found that the original placement judge failed to consider critical evidence regarding the mother's awareness of the abuse and failed to assess the risk of future harm.

The appeal was allowed, but a new placement hearing was ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that upheld a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal assumed without deciding that the trial judge erred regarding the limitation period, but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the separation agreement was not unconscionable.

The uncontradicted evidence showed the respondent had assumed $112,000 in joint debts, resulting in a monthly deficit, justifying the agreement's terms.

The appellant estate appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for an undisclosed latent defect in a residential property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the deceased's son acted as her agent, that the deceased made false statements in the disclosure statement, and that the vendor knew of widespread wood rot in the crawl space which constituted a latent defect unknown to the purchasers.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.