W.L. Whalen

The defendants brought a motion arguing that the plaintiff failed to perfect a construction lien under the Construction Lien Act because its Statement of Claim did not explicitly plead enforcement of the lien and instead referenced trust provisions.

The court considered whether the issued Statement of Claim, read together with the mandatory Information for Court Use form and the surrounding procedural context, sufficiently demonstrated an intention to enforce the lien within the statutory 45‑day period.

Applying a liberal interpretation of lien pleadings and considering the earlier registration of the lien and payment of security into court, the court found the plaintiff intended to enforce the lien despite deficient drafting.

The court concluded that the lien had been effectively perfected and preserved.

The plaintiff was permitted to amend its pleading to clarify the claim.

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The court granted equitable relief from forfeiture and rescinded the earlier judgment.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 accused was charged with break and enter and theft from a retail store.

The Crown’s case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence consisting of blood found on the exterior door beneath a broken window used to gain entry.

DNA testing matched the blood to the accused with an extremely high statistical probability, and the accused’s twin brother was excluded as a potential source based on alibi evidence and physical differences from the individual depicted in security video.

Applying the modern approach to circumstantial evidence following R. v. Cooper, the court found that the blood evidence was logically connected to the break‑in and that no reasonable alternative inference was supported by the evidence.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The plaintiff brought an action seeking an order vesting title to a portion of his parents' property, which he had used to operate a scrap yard business with his late father.

He claimed his parents had promised him the land and sought a constructive trust based on the principles in Soulos v. Korkontzilas.

The court dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of a clear promise and concluding that the family's mutual assistance did not give rise to unjust enrichment, wrongful conduct, or an equitable obligation that would justify imposing a constructive trust.