Philip Stanley Chandler

This appeal concerned the enforceability of Minutes of Settlement signed by family members to resolve three lawsuits involving property and personal injury claims.

The lower court dismissed motions to enforce the settlement, finding a misunderstanding regarding specific equipment (a tractor and snowmobiles) based on subjective intentions.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle by relying on subjective evidence rather than an objective interpretation of the contract.

Applying principles of contractual interpretation, the Court clarified the terms for the tractor (correcting a typographical error) and snowmobiles, concluding that a valid agreement existed.

The Appellants filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal a municipal order requiring them to pay $75,290.81 for the cleanup of spilled pollutants under the Environmental Protection Act.

The order was issued in March 2017, but the notice of appeal was filed over two and a half years later.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants had received notice of the order shortly after its issuance and had legal representation shortly thereafter.

As the Appellants failed to meet the statutory exception of not receiving notice, the motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

Dirm 2010 Inc. was substantially successful in a construction lien trial, recovering over $1.3 million.

This decision addresses the issue of costs.

The court, Master C. Albert, fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, considering factors such as the principle of indemnity, reasonable expectation of the payor, complexity, importance of issues, and proportionality.

Dirm's failure to make a formal settlement offer under Rule 49 resulted in a $6,000 deduction from the awarded costs.

The court also adjusted counsel's hourly rates, reduced the time claimed for a junior lawyer due to excessive docketed time as a student, and disallowed costs for two lawyers attending trial.

Costs were fixed at $354,151.19 payable by Prestressed Systems Incorporated to Dirm 2010 Inc.

Dirm 2010 Inc. brought a construction lien claim against Prestressed Systems Incorporated (PSI) for unpaid work on a concrete topping subcontract for a parking garage.

PSI counterclaimed, alleging Dirm's work was defective and that Dirm fundamentally breached the contract.

The court found that the contract consisted of the negotiated terms, not the onerous unsigned purchase order PSI attempted to impose.

The court held that Dirm's work, while requiring some remediation, did not constitute a fundamental breach.

PSI breached the contract by terminating Dirm without reasonable opportunity to cure and without justification.

Dirm was awarded $1,315,159.20 for completed work, allowable extras, and lost profit, less reasonable backcharges for deficiencies.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Greg Monforton and Partners, due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The child plaintiff, Sora Al Bidery, was represented by the firm, as were her parents, Amir Al Bidery and Amal Karim, who were also named as defendants by counterclaim for negligent supervision.

The court found an inherent conflict of interest based on the duties of loyalty and confidentiality.

The plaintiffs' counsel had taken positions on behalf of the parents that were adverse to the child's interests and had not obtained informed consent from all parties regarding the conflict.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs' counsel was removed from the record for all three plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, a precast concrete manufacturer and its sales agent, sued an engineering company and its principal for breach of contract and negligence arising from delayed and error-filled engineering drawings for a parking garage project.

The court found the defendants liable in both contract and tort for pure economic loss.

The court admitted subcontractor invoices as business records under the principled approach to hearsay to prove damages.

The defendants' third-party claim against their insurers was partially allowed, with the court allocating damages between covered errors and excluded delays.

A contractor sued a distributor and manufacturer after copper tubing supplied for a municipal watermain failed a mandatory sterilization test required by municipal specifications, forcing replacement with alternative piping and causing significant remediation costs.

The court held the distributor liable in contract under the Sale of Goods Act for breach of implied conditions of fitness and merchantable quality, finding the contractor relied on the distributor’s expertise and that the tubing was not fit for its intended municipal watermain use.

The manufacturer was found liable in negligence for failing to investigate regulatory requirements and municipal sterilization standards after legislative changes following the Walkerton water crisis and for failing to warn the parties despite internal knowledge that high chlorine concentrations could cause corrosion and sterilization test failure.

The court concluded the manufacturer breached its duty of care and failed to disclose critical information during the project.

Damages were awarded for remediation costs incurred in removing and replacing the copper tubing.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noise, odour, vibration, drainage, and fly infestation disturbances allegedly emanating from the respondents' property.

The Board commenced a bifurcated hearing to first determine whether it had jurisdiction over the respondents' operation as an 'agricultural operation' under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the applicant withdrew the complaint.

The Board ordered the application withdrawn with prejudice.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding noise, odor, vibration, drainage, and fly disturbances allegedly emanating from the respondents' property.

After mediation failed, a hearing commenced before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Board declined to approve the settlement details as being beyond its jurisdiction, but ordered the application withdrawn with prejudice on consent of all parties.