Si les parties ne peuvent s’entendre sur la question des
dépens, elles peuvent me remettre des observations écrites à cet
égard. La partie requérante me remettra ses observations
écrites dans les 30 jours qui suivent la date de la délivrance de
la présente inscription. Par la suite, la partie intimée me remettra ses observations écrites dans les 30 jours qui suivent la date
où elle aura reçu les observations écrites de la partie requérante.
Les observations écrites devront compter au plus trois pages,
outre le sommaire des dépens. Les parties devront respecter la
règle 4.01 des Règles de procédure civile, R.R.O. 1990, Règl. 194.
Noseworthy v. Noseworthy et al.
[Indexed as: Noseworthy v. Noseworthy]
2017 ONSC 2752
Superior Court of Justice, MacLeod J. May 5, 2017
Contracts — Interpretation — Parties joint owners of real estate
development company — Parties deciding to terminate their relationship and entering into share purchase agreement which provided that
plaintiff was to receive certain payments and 50 per cent of after-tax
profit of subdivision which was then under construction as purchase
price for his shares — Defendant not under fiduciary obligation to
protect plaintiff’s interests — Contract not entitling plaintiff to share
in any other revenues or profits accruing to company from other
The parties were brothers and joint owners of a real estate development company. They decided to terminate their business relationship, and entered into an
agreement the stated purpose of which was to end their joint ownership and
management of the company and to provide for the orderly completion of a subdivision that was then under construction. The agreement provided that the
plaintiff was to receive various payments and that, in particular, he was to
receive “50% of the after tax profits of the Forest Creek subdivision”. The defendant did not make that payment, and the plaintiff sued.
Held, the action should be allowed.
All contracts contain a general duty to act honestly and in good faith in the
performance of contractual relations, but that duty does not in and of itself create
new rights, nor does it elevate contractual duties to fiduciary duties. The defendant was not under a fiduciary obligation to the plaintiff, and the agreement was
not unfair. The agreement could not be interpreted as entitling the plaintiff to
share in any revenues or profits accruing to the company from projects other
than those specifically referred to.