Andrea M. Bolieiro

The appellant brought an application under s. 11 of the Solicitors Act to assess paid accounts rendered by the respondent solicitors.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding no special circumstances justified a referral, noting the appellant's principal was a sophisticated lawyer and businessman who paid the detailed accounts voluntarily.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge failed to independently assess if the fees were excessive based on partial indemnity costs sought on a motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or unreasonable result in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that it wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee without cause and awarding 15 months' reasonable notice plus damages for lost bonus payments.

The employer argued the employee breached its Code of Business Conduct by sharing a private placement memorandum with a third party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the document was not confidential and its disclosure did not violate the Code.

The Court also upheld the 15-month notice period and the award of damages for lost bonuses, finding that unilateral changes to the bonus plan introducing forfeiture provisions had not taken effect.

The appellant, a municipal councillor, sought a declaration that he did not have a pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding an appeal his son's law firm was handling.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding the son's interest was neither remote nor insignificant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by conflating the analyses under sections 3 and 4(k) of the Act.

Applying the reasonable elector test, the Court concluded that the appellant's deemed pecuniary interest was so remote or insignificant that it could not reasonably be regarded as likely to influence his participation in council matters.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action against a municipal election candidate.

The candidate had delivered a confidential letter to City Council referencing allegations of improper influence regarding an untendered lease agreement with the appellant's family business.

The trial judge found the letter defamatory but protected by qualified privilege, and found no express malice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the communication was reasonably appropriate to the occasion and that the appellant failed to prove malice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, who was involved in operating a restaurant on City property, sued the respondent, a mayoral candidate, for libel over comments made during a newspaper editorial board interview.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the comments did not refer to the appellant and were not defamatory.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting the respondent's comments focused on the City Council process rather than the appellant personally, and explicitly disavowed accusing anyone of corruption.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant owned a family camp property.

The respondent, her former son-in-law, had occupied, maintained, and improved the camp for over 20 years.

When the respondent refused to allow his son to use the camp, the appellant attempted to revoke his licence to occupy it.

The trial judge found that the respondent had an equitable right to use the camp during his lifetime based on proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment, and granted an exclusive licence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the trial judge's application of equitable principles or his choice of remedy.