Amandeep S. Dhillon

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a mortgage but abandoned any challenge to the mortgage's validity.

The appeal was confined to whether approximately $315,000 had been shown to have been advanced by the respondent and whether those funds were advanced under the mortgage.

The court held there was no requirement in the circumstances to prove the source of the funds and found the evidentiary record, including the appellant's own affidavit and cross-examination, demonstrated acceptance that the funds were advanced under the mortgage.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs to the respondent.

The appellants challenged an application judgment setting aside a settlement agreement on the basis that it had been induced by intentional misrepresentations concerning the appellants’ financial ability to satisfy outstanding judgments.

The Court of Appeal held that there was ample evidence supporting findings that the respondents relied on those misrepresentations when agreeing to settle, including undisclosed imminent sale proceeds from a property sufficient to satisfy the debts.

The court further held that no trial of an issue was required because none was requested and the written record was sufficient to determine enforceability.

The reasons, though brief, satisfied the sufficiency standard.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

PreMD retained Ogilvy Renault to manage its patent portfolio.

Ogilvy negligently failed to pay maintenance fees, causing two US patents to lapse.

PreMD's business ultimately failed, though the trial judge found the failure was due to lack of regulatory approval and market acceptance, not the lapsed patents.

The trial judge awarded PreMD $1,063,069 in reliance damages and mitigation expenses, rejecting claims for lost profits and broader reliance damages.

PreMD appealed, seeking $14.4 million in reliance damages for pre-contractual and post-contractual expenses.

Ogilvy cross-appealed the damages calculation and costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the additional expenses claimed by PreMD were not caused by the breach and would not have been recouped even if the patents had been maintained.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for possession of six properties and judgment on the covenants of five collateral mortgages.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the transaction was part of a joint venture business arrangement with the plaintiff's principal's son, rather than a conventional mortgage, and disputed that the full $1,100,000 was advanced.

The court applied the 'full appreciation test' under Rule 20 and found no genuine issue requiring a trial for the majority of the claims.

The court held that the mortgages were valid and that most of the funds were advanced as claimed, granting summary judgment for possession and the debt, excluding a disputed $33,000 lender's fee and certain legal accounts.

The appellants appealed an application judge's decision finding that the pylon sign in the engineering drawings accorded with the terms of the commercial lease.

The appellants argued the drawings showed a much larger footprint than the lease specified and placed the sign in a different location.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the lease terms were imprecise and subject to change upon completion of engineering drawings.

The Court also upheld the decision to order a trial of an issue regarding the remedy of specific performance, despite it not being pleaded, as there was no prejudice to the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.