In B.L.T. Construction Services Inc. v. Una Pizza Napoletana Inc., the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant was jointly and severally liable for breach of trust in respect of unpaid construction invoices. His defence had been struck after years of unjustified delay, and he offered no credible explanation or arguable defence. Because he was noted in default, he was deemed to admit the facts, including that the landlords had made leasehold improvement advances to the appellant, but he did not use those funds to pay invoices for those improvements, resulting in his personal liability for breach of trust.
In Project Freeway Inc. v. ABC Technologies Inc., the Court dismissed an appeal by a vendor that had sold shares in a company to a purchaser pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement that provided for earn-out payments over time, based on the future performance of the company. The vendor submitted that the purchaser’s subsequent sale and leaseback of some assets triggered the full earn-out payment, but the Court affirmed the trial judge’s contractual interpretation to the contrary. Overall, the Court emphasized its deference to the trial judge in cases involving highly technical contracts which implicate only the immediate contracting parties and involve issues of mixed fact and law. The standard of review of the trial judge’s contractual interpretation was palpable and overriding error, and no such error was found.
In Gumbley v. Vasiliou, the Court dealt with a catastrophic brain injury following a severe asthma attack and examined whether delayed decisions by the treating physician caused the harm. The Court upheld the trial judge’s findings that the physician’s negligent delays in escalating care and intubating the patient more likely than not led to prolonged hypoxia and the resulting brain damage, rejecting challenges to the trial judge’s evidentiary foundation and causation analysis.
In Nguyen v Pham the moving party sought an extension to file his appeal of an application judgment. The motion was opposed on the grounds that it was frivolous and part of a pattern of unreasonable conduct. The Court dismissed the motion, holding that the moving party’s repeated procedural delays and non-compliance with court orders made an extension not in the interests of justice and prejudicial to the respondent. The moving party’s proposed appeal lacked merit, as it merely attacked discretionary, well‑reasoned findings on striking pleadings, occupation rent, adjustments, and costs that were entitled to deference.
In R.W. Tomlinson Limited v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527, the Court held that R.W. Tomlinson was required to arbitrate its dispute with the Union, as the dispute arose from the collective agreement and fell within the arbitrator’s exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction. The claims of non-parties 283 Ontario and Tomlinson Environmental were not dismissed but were properly subject to a temporary stay pending arbitration, given the arbitrator’s lack of personal jurisdiction and the risk of inconsistent outcomes. The appeal was allowed in part.