Randolph Douglas Mills

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a home in Ilderton, Ontario.

The defendants refused to close, alleging the home was heavily saturated with cigarette smoke that was not disclosed.

The court found no reliable evidence of smoke, no representations made by the plaintiff regarding smoking, and no objectively reasonable danger posed by any smoke present.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding damages of $280,612.08 plus prejudgment interest, finding no genuine issue requiring trial.

This status review application concerned the return of a child to parents with significant developmental delays under a six-month final supervision order.

The court initially declined to make the order due to concerns about parental capacity and suggested a s. 54 assessment.

After further evidence, including developmental reports and the parents' decision for Crown wardship of a subsequent child, the court granted the supervision order.

A fundamental condition was that the parents and child must reside with the paternal grandparents, whose home was noted as overcrowded and had past protection concerns.

The court emphasized the necessity of a s. 54 assessment for any future plan involving the parents living independently.

Two shareholders of a hotel holding company each sought oppression relief following a complete breakdown in their business relationship.

The court had previously found that neither party validly invoked the buy‑sell clause in the shareholders’ agreement and that the parties could no longer operate the business together.

The issue was the appropriate court‑ordered mechanism to separate the shareholders.

The court ordered an independent valuation of the holding company and directed the majority shareholder to purchase the minority shareholder’s interest without a minority discount, together with repayment of the minority shareholder’s loan plus interest calculated under the shareholders’ agreement.

Costs were awarded to the majority shareholder as the substantially successful party.

Two shareholders of a hotel holding company each sought oppression relief following a complete breakdown in their business relationship.

The court had previously found that neither party validly invoked the buy‑sell clause in the shareholders’ agreement and that the parties could no longer operate the business together.

The issue was the appropriate court‑ordered mechanism to separate the shareholders.

The court ordered an independent valuation of the holding company and directed the majority shareholder to purchase the minority shareholder’s interest without a minority discount, together with repayment of the minority shareholder’s loan plus interest calculated under the shareholders’ agreement.

Costs were awarded to the majority shareholder as the substantially successful party.