Sam Johansen

The plaintiff, Canada Bread, sued the defendants (First Gulf and Mallot Creek) for negligence and breach of contract related to a bakery's design and construction.

An initial action was settled, and a release was executed for "known" claims.

Before the release, a fire occurred at the bakery.

Canada Bread's insurer was aware of First Gulf's potential liability for the fire, but Canada Bread itself was not.

Canada Bread subsequently commenced a second action for fire-related damages.

First Gulf brought a summary judgment motion before an arbitrator, arguing the release barred the second action.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the release only covered "known" claims and that Canada Bread was unaware of First Gulf's fire-related liability at the time of the release.

First Gulf appealed this decision to the Superior Court.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal on questions of law but ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's decision as reasonable.

A partner in a national accounting firm was called into a meeting and told to retire after 22 years of partnership.

The firm later invoked a partnership agreement provision allowing the policy board to request a partner's resignation if it unanimously determined it was in the partnership's best interest.

The partner sued for breach of the partnership agreement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that the firm breached the agreement because the policy board did not make an independent determination based on evidence, and the decision was predetermined by the CEO.

The court awarded expectation damages for lost profits and retirement benefits, plus aggravated damages for reputational harm.

The firm appealed, but the appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from a trial judge's decision regarding the interpretation of an agreement.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation of key contractual language.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge correctly applied relevant legal principles, did not find the language ambiguous, and gave it its plain meaning with proper consideration of the surrounding provisions and circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

David W. Fickel sought leave to appeal from a motion judge's order that stayed the execution of a summary judgment for payment on a promissory note, pending the final resolution of the main action.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment to Fickel on the promissory note but stayed its execution due to the interconnectedness of the claims arising from the same share purchase agreement.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to grant a stay under Rule 20.08, and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance beyond the immediate parties.

The defendant estate moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action for delay.

The action was commenced in 2008 regarding treatment provided in 2006.

The plaintiffs failed to answer undertakings for years and did not move the action forward.

The defendant doctor died in 2015.

The court found the delay of almost nine years to be inordinate and inexcusable, rejecting the plaintiffs' explanation that family stress prevented them from pursuing the litigation.

The court concluded that the defendant would suffer substantial prejudice due to the doctor's death, as discovery transcripts could not adequately replace his viva voce evidence on the key issues of informed consent and negligence.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for partial summary judgment claiming the defendant breached a non-solicitation covenant in a share purchase agreement by accepting former clients at his new firm.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on a counterclaim for payment of a $400,000 promissory note.

The court found the restrictive covenant did not prohibit the mere acceptance of former clients who transferred their accounts independently without encouragement.

The court also granted judgment on the promissory note, finding no legal or equitable set-off available, but stayed execution of the judgment pending the resolution of the main action.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued the adjacent property owner for damages to its easement rights due to the defendant's failure to maintain a shared retaining wall, pleading negligence and nuisance.

The defendant, third parties (Development Engineering (London) Limited, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada), and fourth party (Atkinson, Davies Inc.) brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found no common law, statutory, contractual, or equitable duty for the servient tenement (defendant) to repair the wall, especially since the defendant was not responsible for its initial collapse.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court also found that the defendant, third parties, and fourth party were not concurrent tortfeasors, thus precluding claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.