Stephen Roger Barbier

The plaintiff construction company brought an action for unpaid invoices relating to the construction of cottages under cost-plus contracts.

The defendant developer argued that the costs exceeded the budgets and were not properly approved or invoiced.

The court found that the defendant was aware of and approved the extra work, which was necessitated by site conditions, and that the plaintiff had properly invoiced the amounts.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full amount claimed, plus contractual interest.

The respondents brought a motion to quash an appeal from orders dissolving an interlocutory injunction and dismissing a contempt motion.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the orders were interlocutory in nature and therefore the proper appeal route was by leave to the Divisional Court, not direct appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Costs were awarded to the moving party.

This decision concerns a costs award following interlocutory motions in a contentious shareholder dispute.

The Plaintiffs had previously obtained an interlocutory injunction and subsequently brought a contempt motion, while the Defendants moved to dissolve the injunction and sought declaratory relief.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' contempt motion and dissolved the injunction, ordering the Plaintiffs to pay costs for their unsuccessful motions.

The Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $217,000 or partial indemnity of $149,000.

The Plaintiffs requested an offset.

The court ultimately awarded the Defendants $110,000 on a partial indemnity basis, finding them to be the successful party on the relevant motions, and highlighted the "useless litigation" and high level of distrust between the parties.

This decision addresses competing motions in an oppression remedy action among shareholders of Innotech Safety Solutions Inc. The defendants moved to dissolve an interlocutory injunction and sought declarations regarding minority shareholders' voting rights.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for contempt due to alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders and sought to continue the injunction.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding no willful disobedience and that any contempt had been purged.

The interlocutory injunction was dissolved, as the factual basis for its continuance was not established.

The court suggested that a winding-up application might be a more appropriate remedy given the corporate dysfunctionality.

The appellant, Western Troy Capital Resources Inc., retained the respondent, Genivar Inc., an engineering consulting firm, to conduct a feasibility study for a mineral property at MacLeod Lake in Northern Quebec.

The trial judge found that Genivar breached its duty of care and made negligent misrepresentations, awarding damages of $1.25 million.

On appeal, Western Troy sought to increase the award to approximately $2.97 million or $2.15 million, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately explain his damages assessment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's award, finding it was firmly grounded in evidence and that the trial judge properly considered speculative elements including the timing of when the resources estimate should have been completed, which expenses would have been incurred regardless, and the likely reaction of Western Troy's management to a timely report.

The plaintiff mining company retained the defendant engineering consultants to provide a feasibility study for a proposed mineral resource development.

After nearly four years and over $3 million in expenditures, the defendants reported the resource was insufficient to proceed.

The plaintiff sued for professional negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation, arguing the defendants should have made this determination much sooner.

The court found the defendants breached their duty of care and made negligent misrepresentations by failing to properly manage the project, verify the resource model, and communicate concerns.

The court awarded the plaintiff $1,250,000 in damages for 'unnecessary waste' and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for unpaid fees.

The appellants made an offer to settle that was stated to be irrevocable until one minute after the commencement of trial.

Before the respondent accepted the offer, the appellants revoked it and made a new offer.

The respondent sought to enforce the original offer, and the motion judge granted the request, finding that Rule 49.04(1) was subject to the irrevocability provision.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 49 is a self-contained scheme and Rule 49.04(1) expressly permits an offer to settle to be withdrawn at any time before it is accepted, regardless of whether it is stated to be irrevocable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment granting a mandatory injunction requiring them to remove a retaining wall that encroached on the respondent's adjacent commercial property.

The original encroachment was permitted under a 1973 settlement agreement, which stipulated that consent would be rescinded if further encroachment occurred.

The trial judge found that the wall had moved significantly, rescinding the consent and rendering the encroachment a trespass.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the encroachment constituted a trespass, that the appellants had not acquired title by adverse possession because their possession was consensual, and that a mandatory injunction was the appropriate remedy given the significant and ongoing interference with the respondent's property rights.

The appeal was dismissed.