Rodney Morton Godard

A dispute arose between a seller of an endodontics practice and the proposed purchaser regarding the sale of the practice.

The parties executed a Letter of Intent that contained conditions precedent to closing, including the negotiation of a new lease on terms satisfactory to the purchaser and the purchaser's satisfaction with due diligence investigations.

The purchaser terminated the Letter of Intent after learning of key employee departures and difficulties in finalizing the lease agreement.

The seller alleged breach of good faith and honest performance.

The court found no breach, holding that the purchaser exercised his contractual discretion reasonably and in good faith, and was entitled to terminate the transaction when conditions precedent were not met.

The defendant, the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiff, 1375175 Ontario Inc., on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiff alleged negligent issuance of an Order to Comply (OTC) and negligent maintenance of records related to the multi-tenant use of a commercial building.

The court found that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to discover the claim more than two years before the effective commencement date of the amended claim, thus the claim was statute-barred.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

The defendant, 2756646 Ontario Inc. (Mitchell Woods), brought a motion to discharge five certificates of pending litigation (CPLs) registered against nine properties.

The plaintiffs had obtained these CPLs based on Agreements of Purchase and Sale (APS) for homes that were never built.

Mitchell Woods argued the APS were not enforceable against it as it was not the named vendor and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The plaintiffs contended that Hira Custom Homes Inc. acted as Mitchell Woods' agent, or Mitchell Woods was implicitly referenced in the APS, or a constructive trust arose.

The court found a triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' interest in the land based on agency or implied terms.

Considering the equities, particularly the advantageous terms of the APS and the defendant's failure to provide evidence of its ability to pay damages, the court dismissed the motion to discharge the CPLs.

The plaintiff, Mastronardi Produce Limited (MPL), sued the defendant, Rainbow Acres Inc. (RAI), for $516,686.40 for unpaid seeds and packaging materials.

RAI conceded the principal debt but argued it was largely statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and disputed the 18% interest rate.

The court found that MPL successfully rebutted the presumption of discoverability, determining the claim was not discoverable until 2014 due to the nature of the long-standing commercial relationship and ongoing payment efforts.

The court also found that the debt constituted a running account, and RAI's partial payments and signed acknowledgements reset the limitation period.

However, the court declined to apply the 18% contractual interest rate, finding no implied agreement, and instead awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the default rates prescribed by the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, a company that purchased land in Kingsville, Ontario, gave a promissory note for $171,000 to Ronald Colasanti in exchange for an assignment of a water allocation.

When the appellant refused to pay, claiming the promissory note was void for failure of consideration, the trustees of Colasanti's estate brought an action in debt.

The trial judge found valid consideration existed and awarded judgment.

On appeal, the appellant renewed its argument that the water allocation never belonged to Colasanti and therefore could not constitute valid consideration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant obtained an immediate resolution of its water supply problem and a building permit, which constituted valid consideration regardless of the legal status of the water allocation itself.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment finding that it had improperly used a post-tender addendum process as a form of "bid shopping" after accepting the respondent's bid.

The trial judge found that a contract had been formed when the municipality's council resolved to award the contract to the respondent, and that the subsequent re-tendering process and award to another bidder constituted a breach of the municipality's contractual obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, affirming that all bidders must be treated fairly in the tender process and that once a bid is accepted and a resolution issued, the municipality is obligated to issue a purchase order incorporating the agreed contract terms.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order declaring that life insurance proceeds from his deceased father's policy are payable to the father's estate.

The father had originally designated the appellant as a revocable beneficiary in 1998, but in 2006 executed an Assignment Policy Absolute that cancelled all previous beneficiary designations, making the estate the beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the father clearly intended the estate to be the beneficiary through the 2006 Assignment and that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

The appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support his claim.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order striking his claims for wrongful dismissal and severance pay.

The respondents cross-appealed seeking to strike the appellant's remaining claims for emotional distress, breach of human rights, and occupational health and safety violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the wrongful dismissal claim but set aside the striking of the severance pay claim, finding that the limitation period for severance claims should run from the date of completion of employment rather than from the date of notice of termination.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision not to strike the remaining claims, finding them entangled with factual issues inappropriate for determination on a rule 21 motion.

The plaintiff, Dan Bailey, brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer, Milo-Food & Agricultural Infrastructure & Services Inc., and its CEO, Geetu Pathak, after receiving two years' working notice of termination.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim, arguing that the wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims were statute-barred as the limitation period commenced on the date notice was given (March 18, 2013), not the last day worked (March 22, 2015).

The court granted the motion in part, holding that the wrongful dismissal and severance pay claims were indeed statute-barred, consistent with established jurisprudence that the limitation period begins when notice of termination is received.

However, claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and human rights violations were not struck, as they were based on ongoing conduct throughout the notice period and thus fell within the limitation period.

The plaintiffs, former employees of an automobile dealership, sued police and others for damages after a criminal investigation led to the dealership's closure and their job loss.

The defendants moved for an order striking out the plaintiffs’ Statements of Claim.

The court dismissed the negligent investigation claim, finding no private law duty of care owed by police to employees of a suspect.

It granted leave to amend for civil conspiracy and misfeasance in public office claims, but struck other intentional tort claims without leave.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

On a Rule 20 summary judgment motion, moving defendants sought dismissal of claims as statute-barred under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court heard affidavit and oral evidence on discoverability and due diligence, and found the responding parties knew by 2005-2006 of the impugned transfer and related litigation but chose not to investigate potential claims against additional actors.

Applying the objective branch of discoverability and diligence principles, the court held that a reasonable person in their circumstances ought to have known the material facts in 2006.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring trial on the limitations defence and dismissed the action against the moving defendants.