R. Johansen

The plaintiff, Wilderness North Air, was awarded a contract by Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. (Remotes) to be the primary vendor for the delivery of diesel fuel by air to five remote First Nations communities.

After the contract was awarded, several First Nations communities issued Band Council Resolutions (BCRs) stating they would only accept fuel delivered by Wasaya Airways, a First Nations-owned airline that had been unsuccessful in the bidding process.

Remotes subsequently cancelled Wilderness's purchase orders for four of the communities and awarded the work to Wasaya and another carrier.

Wilderness sued Remotes for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith, and sued Wasaya for inducing breach of contract.

The Superior Court of Justice found that Remotes breached the contract and its duty of good faith, and that Wasaya induced the breach.

Wilderness was awarded $2,718,988 in damages, with Wasaya jointly and severally liable for $856,458.

The plaintiff brought a motion for particulars regarding allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' counterclaim.

In support, the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating he had no knowledge of the allegations.

The defendants sought to cross-examine the plaintiff on his affidavit, which the plaintiff resisted as an abuse of process and premature discovery.

The court held that while there is a prima facie right to cross-examine on an affidavit, the court has discretion to limit it to prevent a fishing expedition.

The court permitted the cross-examination but strictly limited its scope to the plaintiff's knowledge of the particulars sought.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, sought an injunction to prevent Tarion Warranty Corporation from drawing on two performance bonds after Tarion terminated the plaintiff from a repair project for a leaking condominium parking garage.

The plaintiff argued the bonds were conditional payment obligations subject to a repair agreement.

The court found the bonds were autonomous demand bonds, meaning Tarion's right to call on them was independent of the underlying contract.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Angelica-Whitewear, the court held that an injunction against a demand bond requires a strong prima facie case of fraud.

As the plaintiff did not allege fraud, the motion was dismissed.

The court also noted the plaintiff would fail the traditional RJR-MacDonald test for injunctive relief.

The applicant sought a declaration that its relationship with the respondents was a landlord-tenant relationship under the Commercial Tenancies Act, allowing it to remove its equipment from the respondents' premises.

The respondents argued the relationship was a joint business venture.

The court found that the parties had entered into two separate agreements—an operating agreement and a lease—and that the arrangement lacked the requisite elements of a joint venture, such as mutual control and joint property interest.

The court declared that a commercial tenancy existed and ordered the application to be tried together with the respondents' civil action for damages.

The defendants moved for the release of cash posted into court as security to vacate a construction lien under s. 44 of the Construction Lien Act.

The parties were engaged in a private arbitration to resolve their disputes, and the arbitrator had issued a partial award but deferred the determination of costs and counterclaims until the conclusion of the arbitration.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that competing claims against the security remained unresolved and that releasing funds before the arbitration concluded would be prejudicial.

The defendant, Melissa Harrison, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's construction lien claim against her personally.

The plaintiff alleged an oral contract for construction services was made exclusively with Harrison.

Harrison argued the contract was with her corporation, 2427087 Ontario Inc. The court found that based on the objective evidence, including a confidentiality agreement and correspondence, the plaintiff was on notice that it was dealing with a corporate entity.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the claim against Harrison personally.