R.A. Muir

Following a declaration that the plaintiffs validly rescinded their franchise agreement, a reference hearing was held to determine compensation under s. 6(6) of the Arthur Wishart Act.

The court awarded compensation for refunded money, inventory, and equipment, but denied compensation for operating losses because the plaintiffs failed to properly record cash transactions and could not substantiate their claimed expenses.

Total compensation of $290,830.72 was ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which sought $25 million in damages against a condominium superintendent and related parties for alleged criminal acts, was dismissed after the plaintiffs inadvertently missed a court-ordered deadline to set the action down for trial.

The Master applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs moved promptly to set aside the order, the delay was adequately explained and resulted from inadvertence, and the defendants suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside with no order as to costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, which involved allegations of improper diversion of corporate funds and an improvident sale of land, had been dormant for an extended period.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately explain the litigation delay, failed to prove inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice that arose due to the passage of time and the expiration of limitation periods.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add several new defendants, including an introducing broker, after discovering their involvement in the loss of the plaintiffs' investments.

The proposed broker defendants opposed the motion, arguing the claims against them were not tenable at law.

The Master granted the motion, finding that the proposed negligence claims were not clearly impossible of success and that the duty of care analysis should be left for a full evidentiary record.

The defendant Ministry of Transportation (MTO) brought a motion to amend its statement of defence and counterclaim to plead that the plaintiff was a tenant at will of the Crown and that no compensation was owed under the Public Lands Act.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to strike existing paragraphs of the defence.

The court denied the MTO's request to amend the pleadings regarding the tenancy at will issue, finding it was barred by res judicata as it should have been pursued in a prior proceeding before the Mining and Lands Commissioner.

However, the court allowed the amendment regarding the Public Lands Act.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to strike was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike out portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim alleging negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches, arguing they were barred by issue estoppel following a police disciplinary hearing.

The court found that while the elements of issue estoppel were met, it would be unjust to apply the doctrine because the disciplinary hearing used a higher 'clear and convincing evidence' standard of proof compared to the civil balance of probabilities standard.

The motion to strike was dismissed, but the action was transferred to Stratford on consent.