Simon Schneiderman

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal of a Superior Court order directing payment out of court.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion and quashed the appeal, finding that the underlying order was temporary and interlocutory under Family Law Rule 2(1) and general jurisprudence, as it did not finally determine the issue of support arrears or the appellant's set-off defence.

The individual defendants, who were architects and a contractor, sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision refusing to grant summary judgment dismissing the claims against them personally.

The plaintiffs had sued the individuals despite the relevant contracts being with their respective corporations.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the summary judgment test.

The court noted that the motions judge allowed the claims to proceed based on 'just barely some factual basis' rather than requiring a genuine issue for trial, and that the scope of personal liability for corporate directors and employees is a matter of public importance.

The appellants appealed a judgment based on a promissory note and uncontradicted evidence of debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to entertain submissions that contradicted concessions appropriately made by the appellants' counsel before the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a Motions Court Judge's decision refusing to vacate a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL).

The respondents had claimed a remedial constructive trust based on alleged unconscionable conduct following the termination of a contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and vacated the CPL, finding no evidence of unconscionable conduct by the appellants and noting that the respondents' claim was essentially for breach of contract rather than an equitable cause of action.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment issued on a promissory note and the motion judge's refusal to grant a stay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision based on the record before her.

However, based on fresh evidence tendered on appeal, the Court upheld the summary judgment but ordered a stay of the judgment until the respondent provides proof of compliance with its obligations to obtain releases of guarantees under the parties' Shareholder's Agreement and Undertaking and Indemnification Agreement.