Robert P. Armstrong

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment ordering it to pay the respondent developer $185,967.08 for the cost of replacing a defectively constructed bicycle path.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in appreciating the expert evidence and in failing to deduct for betterment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to prefer the respondent's expert evidence and correctly concluded that a deduction for betterment would be inequitable since the respondent would transfer the path to the City and receive no value for the new path.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment in a construction lien action that found the respondent's lien valid and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of a contract rider and whether a maximum upset price applied to work required under subsequent city approvals, specifically regarding additional asphalt and a sealant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied principles of contract interpretation, and that his interpretation made commercial sense and was supported by the parties' subsequent conduct.

The father appealed a trial judge's order permitting the mother to relocate to Italy with their two children.

The father argued the trial judge erred in applying the principles of Gordon v. Goetz by focusing on the mother's reasons for moving, failing to adequately weigh the disruption to the children, and failing to prioritize maximizing contact with both parents.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge conducted a full and sensitive inquiry into the best interests of the children and made no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside an interim, interim without prejudice order requiring him to pay child and spousal support.

The appellant argued the original order was obtained by fraud and without notice, and that the motion judge failed to consider the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the order was not obtained by fraud, and noting that the original order was designed to maintain the status quo pending a case conference.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Ontario court.

The action concerned entitlement to the assets of a Chinese company.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction because the personal defendants resided and were served in Ontario, and had attorned to the jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence and taking other steps in the action.

The issue of forum non conveniens was deemed irrelevant.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a termination clause in an Independent Dealer Agreement was void as against the respondent trustee in bankruptcy.

The clause relieved the appellants of their obligation to pay unpaid commissions upon termination of the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, extending the principle from CIBC v. Bramalea to hold that the clause was unenforceable because it provided a windfall to one creditor upon insolvency, violating the public policy of equitable and fair distribution among unsecured creditors.