William Edward Weston Powell

The appellants appealed a decision awarding damages against them personally for oppressive conduct.

They argued the respondent lacked standing, the partnership agreement barred the application, and the application judge lacked authority to award damages against individuals.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the first two issues were improperly raised for the first time on appeal, and relying on Supreme Court precedent to affirm that personal liability can be imposed on directors for oppressive conduct.

The appellants sought to file affidavits on appeal that were not before the application judge.

The application judge had previously given no weight to one appellant's late-filed evidence and proceeded without evidence from the other appellant, who failed to file materials despite a court order.

The Divisional Court refused to admit the fresh evidence, noting that the appellants did not appeal the application judge's evidentiary rulings, did not bring a formal motion to admit fresh evidence, and failed to satisfy the Palmer test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal, specifically the due diligence requirement.

Parkland Corporation, a fuel supplier, sought a declaration that its lease and sublease agreements with Caledon Fuels Inc., a gas station operator, were in full force and effect, and a permanent injunction to prevent Caledon from breaching exclusive supply covenants.

Caledon argued an alleged oral agreement varied the renewal option and that Parkland breached its duty of good faith.

The court found the alleged oral agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and the parol evidence rule, and deemed it unbelievable.

The court also found no breach of good faith by Parkland.

Consequently, the court granted the declaration and permanent injunction in favour of Parkland and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 13, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for breaching an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new build home.

The purchaser failed to close the transaction, alleging confusion and forgery regarding documents amending the purchase price to include selected upgrades.

The court found a valid and binding contract existed, which the purchaser breached.

The court also found the vendor reasonably mitigated its damages by reselling the property, and awarded damages to the vendor for the difference in sale price and carrying costs, net of the purchaser's forfeited deposit.