William Foster Kelly

The appellant, a farm property owner, sought to terminate a three-year farm lease with the respondents after the first crop season, claiming the respondents failed to provide chemical fertilizer application rates in the form she contended was required by the lease.

The trial judge found the appellant was not entitled to terminate the lease and awarded the respondents damages of $64,051.02 for lost profits from the 2013 and 2014 crop seasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, finding that the lease did not contain a provision permitting early termination for this alleged breach, and that the respondents' handwritten disclosure of application rates was adequate performance.

The Plaintiff, Fourteen Estates Limited, brought a motion to have two separate actions (a contract dispute/lien action and a libel action) share common processes and proceed on a common timetable.

The Defendant, Mandy Marie Jensen, opposed the motion, arguing it would complicate and delay the lien action and increase costs due to separate counsel.

The court, applying Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, found significant factual overlap concerning the quality of construction work in both actions.

The court determined that sharing common processes would lead to efficiency and substantial cost savings for all parties, outweighing the defendant's concerns.

The motion was granted, and the parties were ordered to prepare a revised common timetable.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment for damages for breach of an employment contract, alleging entitlement to 180 days' notice or pay in lieu upon termination.

The defendant denied this, claiming the contract provided for Canada Labour Code minimums and that the plaintiff's relied-upon "Schedule A" was a forgery.

The court found significant discrepancies in the plaintiff's evidence regarding Schedule A, suggesting it was forged and not part of the original agreement.

However, due to unresolved questions regarding other email exchanges and the potential for inadvertent non-disclosure of electronic evidence, the court declined to grant summary judgment at this stage.

Instead, it issued directions for further document disclosure, cross-examinations, and a subsequent hearing to fully resolve the factual disputes.