Case Law
is a sample selection from the weekly summaries of notable unreported
civil and criminal court decisions published in Law Times newspaper.
Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in the
newspaper or sampled here can be obtained by calling Case Law's photocopy department at:
(905) 841-6472 in Toronto,
(800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or
(800) 263-2037 in other provinces.
To request a case online
For more Case Law every week, subscribe to Law Times.
|
|
|
Partnership |
|
|
|
|
Ontario Civil Cases
|
ACTIONS BETWEEN PARTNERS
Action for distribution of partnership moneys was dismissed
Plaintiff claimed defendant misappropriated revenues. Plaintiff brought action for declaration of partnership and for distribution of partnership moneys on allegations of breaches of partnership. Action was dismissed. Amount payable out of court to plaintiff was $1,292. Plaintiff did not have partnership interest in ownership of B. property and plaintiff’s claims to that property were dismissed. Plaintiff failed to establish plaintiff did not receive reasonable compensation for labour and tools in renovation of property. Action was brought and prosecuted under false premise. Neither party kept books or paid taxes. Court was being asked to reconstruct business undertaking that probably never existed.
Langelier v. Perron (May 4, 2010, Ont. S.C.J., Crane J., File No. 07-29104) 188 A.C.W.S. (3d) 871 (13 pp.).
|
|
|
Contempt Of Court |
|
|
|
|
Ontario Civil Cases
|
PUNISHMENT
Incarceration required for denunciation and deterrence
Plaintiffs obtained Anton Piller orders requiring defendants to immediately permit entry into their residence to search for and preserve evidence relevant to contempt motion against their son. Orders were explained to defendants and they indicated understanding but nevertheless refused to grant entry. Orders not executed until four days later. Plaintiffs’ motion for order finding defendants in contempt allowed. Clear that defendants chose to breach orders in favour of contempt proceedings. Bifurcated hearing unnecessary here as defendants unable to purge contempt at this point. Defendants each sentenced to four months in jail. Consecutive sentences would allow their daughter to remain in school and enable them to continue operating their business. Contempt was blatant, wilful and deliberate. Defendants were given several opportunities to permit search and maintained refusals. Fundamental purpose of orders, to preserve evidence, was frustrated by defendants’ defiance. Element of surprise lost when search delayed. Defendants displayed contemptuous attitudes and disrespect toward court. Few mitigating factors. Incarceration required for denunciation and deterrence. Others in satellite piracy community had to know that Anton Piller orders could not be disregarded without consequence.
Echostar Communications Corp. v. Rodgers (May 18, 2010, Ont. S.C.J. (Comm. List), Cameron J., File No. 06-CL-6575) 188 A.C.W.S. (3d) 676 (22 pp.).
|
|
|
