Spar Roofing & Metal Supplies Ltd. et al. v. Glynn, 2016 ONCA 296

• Judge: Weiler, Hourigan and Huscroft, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 25, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2016 ONCA 296;(2016), 348 O.A.C. 330 (CA)

Spar Roofing v. Glynn (2016), 348 O.A.C. 330 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.040

Spar Roofing & Metal Supplies Limited, Craig Glynn and Wendy Glynn (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Grant Richard Glynn (defendant/respondent)

(C60682; 2016 ONCA 296)

Indexed As: Spar Roofing & Metal Supplies Ltd. et al. v. Glynn

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Hourigan and Huscroft, JJ.A.

April 25, 2016.

Summary:

Parents gifted real property to one of their three children (Grant) by making him a joint tenant. The other two children (plaintiffs) brought an action against Grant (defendant) challenging the gift. They alleged that the father had promised them that the real property would form part of the corporate assets of the family business, which was now owned by the plaintiffs. The real property served as the main roadway access for the business and was used as a warehouse. A motions judge struck the plaintiffs' pleadings as failing to disclose a cause of action. He also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim to divest the defendant's interest in the property. The plaintiffs appealed. They argued that the motion judge's reasons for decision were so deficient as to preclude meaningful appellate review. Alternatively, they argued that the motions judge erred in striking the claim without leave to amend.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The motions judge's reasons for decision were sufficient to explain the basis for his decision. However, while the motions judge did not err in characterizing the claim as one to enforce a promise to gift the land to the plaintiffs, he erred in dismissing the claim without granting leave to amend the pleading. The court granted leave to amend.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - Parents gifted real property to one of their three children (Grant) by making him a joint tenant - The other two children (plaintiffs) brought an action against Grant (defendant) challenging the gift - They alleged that the father had promised them that the real property would form part of the corporate assets of the family business, which was now owned by the plaintiffs and operated by them - The real property served as the main roadway access for the business and was used as a warehouse - The plaintiffs claimed that the property transfer resulted from the defendant's undue influence over their parents when both suffered from mental illnesses that deprived them of the mental capacity to execute the transfer - A motions judge struck the plaintiffs' pleadings as failing to disclose a cause of action - He also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim to divest the defendant's interest in the property - The plaintiffs appealed - They argued that the motion judge's reasons for decision were so deficient as to preclude meaningful appellate review - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's reasons were not so contradictory, confusing and conclusory as to fail to provide an explanation for the ultimate disposition - The motions judge found that the plaintiffs failed to plead consideration for the alleged oral promise to transfer the property to them, not the defendant - The court stated that "While the reasons are not easy to understand, reading them as a whole and giving them a functional and purposeful interpretation, they explain the basis for the motion judge's decision to strike the pleading, why he refused to grant an adjournment to file a reply and how he arrived at his conclusion" - See paragraphs 22 to 26.

Practice - Topic 2130

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Leave - General - Parents gifted real property to one of their three children (Grant) by making him a joint tenant - The other two children (plaintiffs) brought an action against Grant (defendant) challenging the gift - They alleged that the father had promised them that the real property would form part of the corporate assets of the family business, which was now owned by the plaintiffs and operated by them - The real property served as the main roadway access for the business and was used as a warehouse - The plaintiffs claimed that the property transfer resulted from the defendant's undue influence over their parents when both suffered from mental illnesses that deprived them of the mental capacity to execute the transfer - A motions judge struck the plaintiffs' pleadings as failing to disclose a cause of action, as the plaintiffs pleaded an agreement to convey the property to them but did not plead consideration for that oral agreement - He also held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim to divest the defendant's interest in the property- The plaintiffs appealed - They argued that the motions judge erred in striking the claim without leave to amend - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the grounds that the motions judge erred in dismissing the claim without granting leave to amend the pleading - The motions judge did not err in characterizing the plaintiffs' claim as a promised gift rather than an agreement to convey - An agreement to convey was not pleaded - The proposed amendment (that the transfer was precluded by the parents' agreement for consideration to transfer the property to the plaintiffs) disclosed a cause of action - The court granted leave to amend where the proposed amendment was not incapable of proof and the defendant did not allege prejudice not compensable by way of costs - See paragraphs 27 to 45.

Practice - Topic 2213

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - With leave to amend - [See Practice - Topic 2130 ].

Counsel:

Lorne S. Silver, for the appellants;

C. David Freedman and Suzana Popovic-Montag, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 29, 2016, before Weiler, Hourigan and Huscroft, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On April 25, 2016, Weiler, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.