W. Ross MacDougall

The appellant contractor appealed an arbitrator's decision which found that its letters to the respondent subcontractor did not constitute a 'claim made in writing' under their construction contract.

The arbitrator had distinguished between provisions requiring 'written notice of a claim' and 'claims made in writing', declining to apply established jurisprudence.

The Superior Court of Justice found this distinction to be an error of law.

Applying the established test, the court held that the appellant's correspondence did constitute an unsettled claim made in writing, thereby preserving its right of set-off.

The arbitrator's decision was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an arbitrator's decision regarding a construction dispute.

The arbitrator had granted partial summary judgment to the respondent and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim, finding the applicant failed to provide a 'claim made in writing' as required by the contract.

The applicant also sought leave to appeal the arbitrator's award of contractual interest.

The Superior Court of Justice granted leave to appeal on the issue of whether the correspondence constituted a 'claim made in writing', finding it raised an extricable question of law.

However, the court denied leave to appeal the interest award, concluding it involved a question of mixed fact and law regarding contractual interpretation.

The applicant employer brought an application to rectify a 2005 amendment to its hourly employee pension plan.

A drafting error had inadvertently increased early retirement benefits for terminated employees, contrary to the employer's intention to merely close the defined benefit component to new hires.

The court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to rectify the unilateral trust document, finding clear evidence that the amendment was a mistake and did not reflect the employer's true intention.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of claims against him personally arising from a failed real estate purchase agreement where the purchaser was listed as “Beige Valley Developments” rather than the corporation “Beige Valley Developments Limited.” The plaintiff alleged personal liability and pleaded several torts including inducing breach of contract and unlawful interference with economic relations.

The court held that the pleadings and evidence could not sustain those two tort claims against the defendant because the alleged third party was his own corporation and there was no evidence of actionable wrongdoing against it.

However, factual disputes remained regarding personal liability for breach of contract, breach of duty, and misrepresentation.

Summary judgment was therefore granted only in part and the remaining issues were directed to trial.