Canada Case Law

Unisys Canada Inc. v. Pineau-Pandya

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Defendants failed to discharge the onus under Rule 13.04/Shannex to show there is no genuine issue of material fact; numerous disputed material facts—including fiduciary status, solicitation, and circumstances of termination—require credibility assessments and factual findings that cannot be made on summary judgment; accordingly the summary judgment motion is dismissed at stage one and defendants may not summarily dismiss other claims without specific notice.

Source excerpt

• Fiduciary duty
• Non-solicitation/non-competition
• Misuse of confidential information
• Constructive trust/accounting
• Settlement privilege
• Summary judgment/shannex test

Read case analysis

Red Chamber Co. v. Glenn Fitzgerald Trucking Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against GFT because the undisputed evidence failed to establish the cause of the fire, and without a proven cause no negligence by GFT could be found; accordingly there was no genuine issue of material fact and no viable legal route for the Plaintiffs to succeed against GFT.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Burden of proof/onus
• Cause of loss
• Inspection obligations
• Common carrier liability

Read case analysis

Commodore’s Boats Ltd. v. Tyee Shepard (Ship)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed Commodore’s claim for unpaid ship-repair invoices and entered judgment for Tyee, finding Commodore’s work was defective and a fundamental breach.

• Ship repairs
• Breach of contract
• Unjust enrichment
• Mitigation of damages
• Expert evidence
• Seaworthiness

Read case analysis

Buffalo Megan Holding Ltd. v. PKT Holdings Inc.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

La Cour suprême de la Colombie-Britannique rejette les prétentions personnelles de William Wang contre les requérants pour absence de véritable question à juger et ordonne 87 000 $ en sûreté pour frais.

• Summary judgment under rule 9-6
• Collateral/umbrella agreements
• Abuse of process and collateral attack
• Elements of conspiracy
• Quantification and timing of security for costs
• Receiver sale approval

Read case analysis

Wilkinson v. Chartier

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal allowed from summary dismissal of trust claims. The Court held the judge weighed evidence and applied the wrong discovery test under s. 12 of the Limitation Act.

• Limitation act s.12 discovery rule
• Resulting trust
• Undue influence
• Testamentary capacity
• Summary judgment evidentiary limits
• S.151 wesa leave to commence proceeding

Read case analysis

Jordan v. Fenwick Holdings Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the undisputed evidence and lease terms the common turn‑about and sidewalk were common areas for which the landlord Fenwick had control and maintenance responsibility; Shoppers did not have control or carry out maintenance or otherwise assume responsibility for that area; payment of proportionate operating expenses alone does not make a tenant an occupier under the OLA; there was no genuine issue of material fact nor a real chance of success for the plaintiff against Shoppers, so summary judgment dismissing the claim against Shoppers was granted.

Source excerpt

• Definition of occupier under ola
• Common areas and landlord/tenant obligations
• Duty of care under ola s.4
• Financial contribution to operating expenses
• Summary judgment test and "real chance" standard

Read case analysis

Graham v. Toronto (City)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge did not err: she gave counsel notice of the risk of reverse summary judgment, the respondents established a reasonable excuse for late notice on the evidence, and the City failed to demonstrate prejudice given contemporaneous photos, subsequent City photos and lack of evidence as to why measurements were not taken; consequently the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded.

Source excerpt

• Notice requirement
• City of toronto act s.42
• Reasonable excuse and prejudice
• Reverse (boomerang) summary judgment
• Minimum maintenance standards

Read case analysis

Deswal v. ADT LLC (ADT Security Services)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge did not err: no legal duty arose for ADT to advise the purchasers about system vulnerabilities beyond the written Agreement; the appellants were sophisticated and chose not to read the contract which contained clear notice of backup options; applying the Tercon test the limitation of liability clause was neither unconscionable nor contrary to public policy and was therefore enforceable; appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Limitation of liability clause
• Duty to advise
• Entire agreement clause
• Unconscionability
• Tercon test

Read case analysis

Northern Industrial Services Group Inc. v. Duguay

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge correctly applied the Hryniak summary judgment framework and, on the evidentiary record, properly found that NISG failed to adduce clear and reliable evidence that Duguay Sr. funded or materially assisted DSI or otherwise breached the non-competition covenant; accordingly summary judgment dismissing NISG's action against Duguay Sr. was appropriate and judgment on the counterclaim for the unpaid purchase price was properly granted.

Source excerpt

• Breach of contract
• Non-competition covenant
• Summary judgment test and burden
• Counterclaim for purchase price
• Assessment of damages
• Costs

Read case analysis

De Melo v. De Melo

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion judge correctly applied Rule 16 and Hryniak, found the mother discharged her burden that there was no genuine issue for trial on custody and access, concluded the father failed to raise specific evidentiary facts creating a genuine issue, applied s.24(2) best interests factors including the children's expressed wishes, and properly exercised discretion in awarding costs; therefore the appeal is dismissed and the custody, access and costs orders are upheld.

Source excerpt

• Custody
• Access
• Best interests of the child
• Summary judgment under rule 16
• Children's wishes
• Costs assessment

Read case analysis