Steven G. Shoemaker

Laurentian University brought a motion within its CCAA proceedings for a vesting order to transfer a portion of its property to neighbouring landowners.

The transfer was part of a settlement agreement to resolve a pre-existing encroachment dispute, with the neighbours agreeing to pay $20,000.

The court found it had jurisdiction to grant the vesting order under section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act, read in conjunction with the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act and the CCAA.

The court also confirmed that a vesting order does not constitute a conveyance that engages the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act.

As the motion was unopposed and resolved outstanding litigation, the vesting order was granted.

The appellant contractor appealed a summary judgment decision enforcing a stipulated remedy in a mediated settlement agreement.

The settlement required the appellant to remediate construction deficiencies by a deadline, failing which $30,000 held in court would be forfeited to the respondent.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to remediate the deficiencies and declined to grant relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's characterization of the clause as a forfeiture rather than a penalty, nor in her conclusion that enforcing the forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a housing cooperative's decision that she was no longer eligible for a Rent-Geared-to-Income subsidy after refusing an offer for a one-bedroom unit.

The applicant argued the cooperative lacked the delegated authority to make this determination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the service manager had expressly delegated the authority to determine eligibility and consider extenuating circumstances to the cooperative.

The court also found the cooperative's decision that the applicant failed to establish extenuating circumstances was reasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add the principal of the defendant corporation as a party defendant.

The proposed defendant argued the motion was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period was extended by email correspondence or, alternatively, that the amendment corrected a misnomer.

The court found the emails did not extend the limitation period as they were sent on behalf of the corporation, not the individual personally.

The court also held the amendment sought to add an entirely new party, not correct a misnomer, and dismissed the motion as statute-barred.

The parties executed minutes of settlement requiring the respondents to pay $250,000 in instalments, with a consent judgment held in escrow.

The respondents missed the final $95,000 payment, prompting the appellant to file a writ of execution.

The respondents successfully moved for relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, and the motion judge rescinded the consent judgment, granting judgment for $95,000 instead.

The appellant appealed, arguing it should have been allowed to revert to its option to continue the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no live issue that the option could be revived after being exercised.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order arising from a pleadings motion in a civil action.

The Court of Appeal held it had no jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory, and emphasized that the motion judge had only determined that the pleadings survived the plain and obvious test.

The court noted that nothing in the motion judge's reasons was determinative of issues to be decided at trial.

The appeal was quashed, with agreed costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the cause.

The defendants brought a motion seeking relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act after breaching a settlement agreement that required installment payments totaling $250,000.

The defendants had already paid $155,000 but failed to pay the final $95,000 by the deadline, triggering a contractual clause entitling the plaintiff to judgment for the full $250,000 without credit for prior payments.

The court considered the distinction between penalties and forfeiture and held that enforcing the clause would produce an unconscionable forfeiture because it would permit the plaintiff to recover $405,000 for a settlement valued at $250,000.

The court granted equitable relief from forfeiture and rescinded the earlier judgment.

A new judgment was issued only for the unpaid balance of $95,000 plus interest.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligent misrepresentation after extending credit to a company that subsequently went bankrupt.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The credit union argued it was protected by a disclaimer on the credit inquiry form, while the individual defendants argued they owed no duty and made no misrepresentations.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of negligent misrepresentation and that a trial was required to resolve credibility issues and determine the effect of the disclaimer.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking security for costs against a corporate plaintiff with insufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff conceded it lacked assets but argued that both the corporation and its sole shareholder were impecunious and that ordering security would stifle a meritorious claim for breach of contract and lost profits.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence governing corporate impecuniosity and the evidentiary burden on shareholders to show they cannot raise funds to post security.

Despite limited financial disclosure, the court accepted sworn evidence that both the corporation and its shareholder lacked the ability to provide security and found that denying the plaintiff the ability to proceed would result in injustice.

The motion for security for costs was therefore dismissed, though the successful plaintiff was denied costs due to inadequate disclosure during the motion.

The plaintiffs, residents of Ontario, were injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan when their vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, a Michigan resident.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario and the defendant moved to stay the action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the plaintiffs resided and received most of their medical treatment there, and the defendant, living in a border city, could reasonably foresee involvement in an accident with an Ontario resident.

The court also held that Ontario was the more convenient forum given the location of the plaintiffs' medical witnesses and the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings regarding their underinsured motorist coverage.

The appellant appealed an Engineer's Report under the Drainage Act, seeking to redirect proposed drainage away from his property to a North Drain, remove his property from the drainage area, and eliminate his assessments.

The Tribunal heard competing expert engineering evidence regarding natural surface water flow and project costs.

The Tribunal accepted the municipal engineer's conclusion that natural overland flow is predominantly from northeast to southwest and that the proposed Drain A option was the most practical solution.

The Tribunal found the appellant's assessments for benefit and outlet to be fair and equitable.

The appeals were denied.