R. Lepere

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.

Following an interpleader application regarding funds held for a construction project, two creditors asserted priority claims which were dismissed.

Two other respondents took the lead in opposing these priority claims and subsequently sought their costs.

The court awarded $10,000 in partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents, to be paid equally by the unsuccessful creditors, with the award divided 60/40 in favour of the respondent who took the primary lead.

The applicants brought a motion for penalties arising from the respondent's ongoing contempt of an order requiring him to pass estate accounts.

The respondent brought a cross-motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a previous order requiring him to account as attorney for property, arguing he never acted in that capacity.

The respondent's counsel also moved to be removed from the record.

The court granted the motion to remove counsel, found the respondent in ongoing contempt, imposed a $750 fine, and ordered him to purge his contempt within 60 days.

The court deferred a final decision on the Rule 59.06(2) motion, instead ordering the respondent to account for specific transactions in the deceased's joint bank accounts.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim at trial, the successful defendants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff conceded that substantial indemnity costs were warranted due to unsuccessful fraud allegations but disputed the quantum and whether the litigation administrator should be personally liable.

The court fixed costs at $45,000 for the Jolicouers and $55,000 for Debra.

The court ordered the litigation administrator to be personally liable for 67% of the costs, representing the portion incurred after the deceased's death when she continued the litigation for her own benefit, with the estate liable for the remaining 33%.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant municipality for damages after its bid for a municipal contract was rejected unopened.

The municipality rejected the bid pursuant to a by-law prohibiting bids from contractors involved in active litigation with the municipality (a reprisal policy).

The court held that the reprisal policy was an implied term of the tendering contract (Contract A) based on the presumed intention of the parties and the need for business efficacy.

Consequently, the plaintiff's bid was non-compliant, and the municipality did not breach the contract by rejecting it.

The plaintiff estate administrator brought an action alleging that the deceased's daughter, acting as power of attorney, fraudulently transferred the deceased's farm properties to another daughter and son-in-law in 1997.

The court found no evidence of fraud or conspiracy, concluding that the deceased had authorized the transfers.

The court also held that any claim for the unpaid balance of the purchase price was barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendants' counterclaim regarding the severance of a joint tenancy was also dismissed.