Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal held the settlement implied a mutual release, but neither side was ready and willing to complete, so repudiation was not established.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Diamant Cleaning’s appeal and fresh-evidence application, holding the mutual release binding and counsel authorized to settle.
The court concluded the recorded settlement did not include mutual releases for the Spry Harbour properties where the settlement contemplated possible tenancy in common; mutual releases were intended only for properties each party would keep as sole owner. The defendant's proposed extension of mutual releases to tenants in common was a new term not agreed on the record. Because the settlement was confirmed on the record and the enforcement motion was largely unnecessary due to prior counsel's failures, the defendant was ordered to pay party-and-party costs under Tariff C plus additional throw…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Robert W.G. Grosz’s application to set aside a consent dismissal order for duress and awarded special costs to the defendants.
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s withdrawal request and adjournment bid, holding that the set-aside application had to proceed on its merits without further delay.
The Court of Appeal granted a stay pending appeal of an order setting aside a prejudgment garnishing order, subject to an expedited hearing schedule.
The release’s text unambiguously covered all claims arising from services provided by DMCT through December 31, 2007; that category includes the negligence claim even if unknown at the time, so the release barred the claim and summary judgment dismissing the action was warranted.
Source excerpt
The Release, read as a whole and interpreted consistently with the parties' commercial intent, encompassed 'successors' and 'corporations under [Goldfinger's] control' and released claims to proceeds from SG Waterloo; 1830994 Ontario Ltd., a corporation under Goldfinger's control and assignee of CTC's charges, was therefore bound by the Release and its secured claims against SG Waterloo were disallowed.
Source excerpt
The May 2010 Mutual Release between GJR and HIG extinguished the 2008 Contribution and Side Agreements before M5 sought to enforce any rights as a third‑party beneficiary; therefore there was no existing contractual obligation for M5 to enforce against HIG, and independently M5 failed to prove HIG received any tangible benefit from its marketing services so the elements of unjust enrichment were not met; accordingly M5’s claims are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Court affirmed that the appellant's attempt to re-litigate a boundary dispute previously resolved by minutes of settlement and mutual releases, and dismissed in earlier proceedings, was non-justiciable and an abuse of process; accordingly the trial judge's order striking the statement of claim was correct and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
