Robert W. Scriven

The plaintiffs, a son and daughter-in-law, took over the operation of the defendants' family dairy farm based on an understanding that they would eventually acquire the farm and milk quota on favourable terms.

After six years of operating the dairy and making significant investments of time and money, the relationship broke down and the plaintiffs were forced to leave.

The plaintiffs sued for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched by certain improvements to the property and that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met because the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' assurances to their detriment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $405,000 in damages, while allowing $2,000 on the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

The appellants challenged an administrative decision finding that they illegally transported milk between two separately licensed dairy facilities operating on the same property and imposing $10,000 in penalties.

The Tribunal held a de novo hearing and applied the civil standard of proof, requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence because of the serious licensing consequences.

It found the respondent's case was entirely circumstantial and did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that milk had been moved contrary to the regulation.

The tribunal accepted the appellants' explanation for unusual production patterns and found the trailer-mounted tank evidence inconsistent with clandestine milk transfer.

The decision and penalties were set aside, and any deducted penalties were ordered credited back.

The appellant filed a motion to amend a consent order regarding the proceeds of the sale of cattle removed from his property by Animal Welfare Services.

The appellant requested that the proceeds be held by a third party instead of the respondent.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to amend a consent order without consent.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that it is a creature of statute and its powers under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act do not include the ability to vary a consent order without the agreement of both parties.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of two compliance orders, a Notice of Removal, and a Statement of Account, arguing they were filed outside the statutory five-business day appeal period under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board held that the appeal period is a jurisdictional issue and cannot be extended.

The appeals of the compliance orders and removal order were dismissed as late.

However, the Board found that the appeal of the Statement of Account was filed on the final day of the appeal period, varying its rules to accept an email filing after 5:00 p.m. due to the Board's fax machine being unavailable.

The motion to dismiss the appeal of the Statement of Account was denied.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a new veal barn and an increase in permitted livestock.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order establishing the issues list, witness requirements, and schedule for the upcoming video hearing.

Following a trial to determine the value of the matrimonial home, the court assessed costs.

The applicant contended the home was worth $260,000, while the respondent valued it at $414,000.

The court determined the value to be $392,000, making the respondent the successful party.

As the applicant failed to beat the respondent's offers to settle and the respondent did not better her own offer, the court awarded the respondent costs representing 75 percent of her legal fees, totaling $14,682.25.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a motion brought by the respondent.

The applicant argued that the respondent's conduct, including imposing a tight timetable and failing to provide persuasive evidence, warranted elevated costs.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct or abuse of process required for substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $4,640.

Following a motion regarding a section 71 Land Titles Act Notice and a cross-motion for a restraining order, the parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs.

The court noted divided success and problematic conduct by both parties, including the applicant's non-disclosure and the respondent's improper registration of the notice on title.

Ultimately, the court awarded costs of $5,000 to the applicant, finding it to be a fair, reasonable, and proportional amount.

The parties disputed the value of their matrimonial home as of the valuation date.

The applicant's expert appraised the home at $260,000 using local comparables, while the respondent's expert appraised it at $414,000 using comparables from a wider geographic area and making adjustments.

The court preferred the methodology of the respondent's expert but applied a 20 percent discount to the adjustments to account for the subjectivity of appraisals, ultimately valuing the home at $392,000.

The husband sought to remove s.71 notices registered by the wife on his farm properties, arguing that an equalization claim does not create an interest in land.

The wife opposed the removal and sought a restraining (preservation) order under s.12 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that s.71 notices were improperly registered for an equalization claim, which is a monetary claim, not a proprietary interest in land.

Consequently, the s.71 notices were ordered discharged.

However, due to the husband's non-disclosure in Farm Debt Mediation and delays in financial disclosure, the court granted the wife's request for a restraining (preservation) order under s.12 FLA to protect her potential equalization payment.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated January 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the motion fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellants, Ontario farmers, purchased agricultural machinery from the respondents, whose business is located in Quebec near the Ontario border.

The appellants sued the respondents in Ontario and served the statement of claim outside Ontario.

The motion judge set aside the service and stayed the proceeding, finding that the respondents did not carry on business in Ontario and therefore Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence showed the respondents solicited sales in Ontario, derived 40% of their sales revenue from Ontario, operated a mobile repair service in Ontario, and maintained a GPS system in Ontario to support the machinery sold there.

Therefore, the respondents carried on business in Ontario, establishing a real and substantial connection, and Ontario courts have jurisdiction.

The defendants, vendors of a farm property, brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action against them regarding an unregistered solar panel lease.

The plaintiff, who owned the solar panels, sued both the vendors and the purchaser after the purchaser denied him access to the property.

The vendors argued the purchaser had actual notice of the lease and was bound by it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial due to an insufficient evidentiary record, contradictory statements in closing documents including a statutory declaration, and the risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The defendants brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction over the litigation.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants carried on business in Ontario and that the contract for the sale of a tractor was formed in Ontario.

The court applied the real and substantial connection test and found that the defendants' activities did not amount to carrying on business in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court determined that the contract was formed in Quebec during a telephone conversation.

Consequently, the plaintiffs failed to establish a geographic connection to Ontario, and the defendants' motion was granted.

The applicant wife moved for an order for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and farm property so she could purchase her own residence.

The respondent husband opposed the motion and offered to pay a $470,000 advance on her equalization payment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an immediate sale would be oppressive as it would force the respondent and their daughter off the property and disrupt the farming operations.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the $470,000 advance on equalization.

The appellant operated a meat processing business at a permanent location and sold products from a mobile trailer at farmers' markets and events.

The Ministry detained his meat products, alleging he operated an unlicensed meat plant.

The appellant appealed the Director's disposal order, claiming the 'food service exemption' under the Meat Regulation.

The Tribunal found that over 50% of the appellant's total business sales were meals or meal portions for immediate consumption, qualifying the business for the exemption.

The appeal was allowed and the Director's disposal order was revoked.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment dated July 4, 2016.

The appellant had been served with a statement of claim alleging he had provided an oral personal guarantee for $50,000 on a loan agreement.

The appellant failed to defend the action and was noted in default, resulting in a default judgment being entered.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion to set aside the default judgment, finding that the appellant had acknowledged his debt through communications with the respondent and had deliberately delayed responding to the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no overriding or palpable error or error of law in the exercise of discretion.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment of $50,000 and vacate a notice of garnishment.

The defendant had acknowledged the debt and offered a repayment plan but failed to defend the action.

He ignored the default judgment for over six months until garnishment was served on his corporation.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments and found that the defendant deliberately delayed and failed to provide a plausible explanation.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $5,500 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendant, a former employee, in contempt of an interlocutory injunction prohibiting him from soliciting clients or disclosing confidential information.

The plaintiff relied on affidavits containing hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's alleged solicitation attempts.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that under Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, hearsay evidence is inadmissible on a contentious point in a contempt motion.

The plaintiff failed to meet the strict burden of proving contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a successful motion for injunctive relief, the plaintiff sought costs.

The court reviewed the written submissions and awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,556.91, inclusive of HST and disbursements, which included costs for a prior attendance.