This was an Appeal of a Master’s Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s Application for Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff and Defendant were former spouses whose matrimonial property included a shared interest in a corporation. Prior to the events giving rise to the Appeal, the Plaintiff and Defendant were parties to a shareholder oppression dispute which was resolved in advance of Trial pursuant to a settlement agreement. The Defendant defaulted under the settlement agreement and the Plaintiff sued, subsequently applying for Summary Judgment before a Master. The Summary Judgment Application was dismissed. The Plaintiff appealed.

In granting the Appeal, Justice Kubik concluded that the Plaintiff’s entitlements upon default of the settlement agreement could be readily ascertained from the pleadings, and agreed with the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the settlement agreement. Moreover, the Court permitted the partial introduction of additional Affidavit evidence from the Plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 6.14(3). In permitting introduction of the new evidence, the Court noted the evidence’s relevance to the issues in dispute, namely the circumstances surrounding the settlement agreement and the alleged defaults. The Court noted that other portions of the Affidavit evidence, which concerned the Plaintiff’s subjective intentions or understandings, were inadmissible and were not considered in deciding the Appeal. Specific paragraph numbers were referenced throughout the Judgment to indicate which portions of the Affidavit were being relied upon.