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 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 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 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.