Raymond Murray

The plaintiff father sued his defendant son and several of the son's companies, seeking the return of over $12 million in funds and properties transferred to the son between 2010 and 2015.

The father alleged that the properties were to be held in trust for him and his other children, and claimed breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the son successfully rebutted the presumption of resulting trust.

The court accepted the son's evidence, corroborated by independent witnesses and bank personnel, that the father had a clear donative intent and gifted the funds and properties to the son.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend his statement of claim in an action alleging his son misappropriated funds using a power of attorney.

The defendants consented to some amendments, including removing a bank as a defendant, but opposed adding numerous new particulars of properties and transactions.

The court granted the unopposed amendments but denied the opposed ones, finding that adding unproven transactions to the pleading before entitlement to a tracing remedy was established would unnecessarily complicate and delay the trial, constituting an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his statement of claim to remove his mother as a defendant and add her as a plaintiff, with himself acting as her litigation guardian.

The defendant brother opposed the motion, arguing the plaintiff was not an appropriate litigation guardian due to a conflict of interest and an acrimonious relationship.

The court found that the mother was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The court also held that the plaintiff was an appropriate litigation guardian, as he had no interest adverse to his mother and the level of acrimony did not interfere with his ability to act in her best interests.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was allowed.

Following an eight‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s action was dismissed, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs after an earlier settlement offer to dismiss the claim without costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should remain on a partial indemnity scale and challenged both the proportionality of counsel time and several disbursements.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the magnitude of the claim, the complexity of the litigation, the importance of the issues to other generators, and the relative financial positions of the parties.

The judge concluded that the amounts sought were excessive and that the unsuccessful party should not bear the full scope of the defendant’s litigation resources.

Total costs were fixed at $250,000 inclusive of HST.

A small hydroelectric power producer sought a declaration and damages concerning the interpretation of a long‑term electricity purchase contract.

The plaintiff argued that payments after the tenth year of the agreement were required to escalate annually with inflation, while the defendant maintained that the contract fixed the tenth‑year rate as a floor and permitted annual rate determinations thereafter.

The court held the contract language was clear and contained no entitlement to an automatic inflation escalator.

Claims based on estoppel arising from the treatment of other generators were rejected.

Although the limitation period did not bar claims arising within two years before the action, the plaintiff ultimately failed to establish entitlement under the contract.