Todd D. Storms

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal concerning the discharge of mortgages.

The appellant, Rick Goodman, challenged two findings of the application judge: that a $60,000 promissory note was statute-barred and that certain legal fees could not be added to the mortgage balance.

The court upheld the application judge's findings, confirming that the promissory note's limitation period ran from its maturity date and that the legal fees, despite being incurred pre-mediation, were not properly claimed six-and-a-half years later.

Varcon Construction Corporation appealed a partial summary judgment granted to 2099082 Ontario Limited (AWD Contractors) concerning a construction subcontract dispute.

Varcon's appeal challenged findings that AWD's work was not deficient and that AWD did not fail to rectify deficiencies.

AWD cross-appealed the motion judge's decision to order a trial on the subcontract's warranty provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Varcon's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings.

The Court allowed AWD's cross-appeal, determining there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the warranty, as a plain reading of the contract did not support Varcon's interpretation that AWD was a general guarantor for all project defects.

The appellants sought to appeal a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to stay an action in favour of arbitration.

The respondents raised a jurisdictional objection based on section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, which provides that there is no appeal from the court's decision on a motion to stay.

The Court of Appeal held that section 7(6) precludes any appeal from a decision on a motion to stay, whether granting or refusing the stay, and therefore dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds without reviewing the motion judge's analysis.

The plaintiff commenced an action seeking over $17 million in damages against the defendant automotive repair shop, alleging extortion and fraud related to a prior Small Claims Court action that the parties had settled.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 21.01(3)(d) and to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the action, finding it was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate a resolved dispute.

However, the court declined to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant, noting it lacked jurisdiction to do so on a motion, as such relief requires a separate application.

The plaintiff, 2099042 Ontario Limited (AWD), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant, Varcon Construction Corporation (Varcon).

Varcon's counterclaim sought damages for alleged deficient work, failure to warn, and failure to rectify deficiencies by AWD, which Varcon claimed led to a sewage system failure due to soil consolidation.

The court found that AWD's work was performed in a workmanlike manner, met all required standards, and was not deficient.

Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment in favour of AWD, dismissing Varcon's claims related to deficiencies, failure to warn, and failure to rectify.

However, the court determined that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding AWD's liability under the warranty provisions of the subcontract, even in the absence of deficient workmanship.

A trial was ordered to resolve these warranty issues and, if liability was established, to assess damages on a quantum meruit basis.

The Martin Defendants sought a stay of action against them in favour of arbitration, relying on s.7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that granting a partial stay would unreasonably bifurcate the proceedings because the fourth defendant, TDL Group Corp., was not a party to the arbitration agreements, and all claims arose from closely related facts.

The court dismissed the motion for a partial stay, finding it unreasonable to bifurcate the action and that doing so would lead to a multiplicity of legal proceedings, contrary to the policy reflected in s. 138 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, Cornerstone Builders Ltd., appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in favour of the respondent, 1652620 Ontario Inc. The motion judge awarded payment of monies due under a promissory note and struck out portions of the counterclaim.

The core dispute arose from a shareholders' agreement requiring a non-competition agreement upon cessation of shareholding.

After the appellant purchased the respondent's shares in 2011, a falling out occurred and the respondent's principal established a competing business without signing the non-competition agreement.

The appellant ceased making payments on the promissory note.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding errors in the motion judge's approach to the stay of execution, the adjournment of the summary judgment motion, and the striking of counterclaim allegations.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that granted far-reaching relief to the respondent regarding amounts allegedly owing on a 1994 second mortgage and a 1997 judgment on the covenant.

The Court of Appeal found that the relief granted by the motion judge could not stand.

The court determined that the amounts were duplicated in the judgment, the underlying second mortgage was extinguished by power of sale proceedings, and the debt was extinguished by the bankruptcies of the deceased and one of the defendants.

The court also rejected the finding of fraudulent conveyance and found the claim regarding farm equipment proceeds to be statute-barred.

The only claim that survived was for child support arrears and unpaid costs awards relating to child support.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment by the plaintiff landlord in a commercial lease dispute, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The lease contained an indemnification clause providing for solicitor and client costs.

Applying the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount slightly for proportionality, resulting in a total costs award of $59,851.36.

The plaintiff landlord brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant tenant for damages arising from the early termination of a commercial lease.

The tenant had vacated the premises without providing the required six months' notice or paying the 24 months' rent stipulated in the lease's early termination clause.

The tenant argued the landlord had forfeited the lease by changing the locks and counterclaimed for damages.

The court found the tenant had unilaterally terminated the lease and abandoned the premises, entitling the landlord to re-enter and claim the liquidated damages.

Summary judgment was granted to the landlord and the tenant's counterclaim was dismissed.