Angela Assuras

The appellant, a lawyer, retained the respondent law firm to assist her at a trial.

The respondent's initial estimate of costs was $50,000, but the final accounts exceeded $150,000.

The assessment officer found the accounts reasonable, noting the work was done at the appellant's behest, and the Superior Court dismissed the appellant's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the further appeal, finding no error in principle in the assessment officer's conclusion that the accounts were reasonable given the circumstances.

The plaintiff brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders that dismissed a motion to continue an ex parte Anton Piller order and dismissed subsequent motions for relief under Rules 30 and 45.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge properly considered the matter de novo and correctly concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case to justify continuing the intrusive order.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the orders and no denial of natural justice.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent tenant for breach of a demolition clause in a commercial lease.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding the breach caused the respondent to close its business, and that the respondent failed to properly renew the lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions on causation.

The Court also held the appellant was estopped from insisting on formal compliance with the lease renewal clause due to its past conduct of accepting oral renewals.

The appellants appealed an order declaring that they had repudiated Minutes of Settlement and lifting a stay in bankruptcy proceedings to allow the respondent's action to continue.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in making the declaration of repudiation because the relief was sought by motion rather than by originating process.

However, the Court upheld the order lifting the stay, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded there had been repudiation in the context of the motion to lift the stay.

The appeal was allowed in part to quash the declaration, but dismissed regarding the lifting of the stay.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing two guarantees they provided for the indebtedness of their corporation.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, concluding there was no triable issue regarding an enforceable agreement between the respondents and the corporation, nor any indication that such a contract was a term of the guarantee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim against the respondent municipality.

The appellants argued the motion judge should have considered their motion to amend the statement of claim before striking it.

The Court of Appeal agreed but found the motion to amend would have failed due to inordinate, unexplained delay and prejudice to the respondent, including the expiry of limitation periods.

The unamended statement of claim disclosed no cause of action against the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their actions against a solicitor for breach of undertaking and against a corporate defendant for fraudulent conveyance.

The solicitor had released holdback funds after confirming with the architect that deficiencies were rectified, fulfilling the terms of the undertaking despite an initial breach.

The trial judge also found that the corporate defendant held the transferred property as a bare trustee, defeating the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error as the issues were primarily based on credibility assessments.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that his debt to the respondent survived his discharge from bankruptcy due to a breach of trust.

The trial judge found the appellant engaged in reprehensible conduct, including filing false declarations that subcontractors had been paid, with the intent to deceive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant failed to account for project expenses and that his conduct exhibited a significant element of dishonesty, satisfying the requirements of s. 178.1(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a creditor of a bankrupt estate, sought to recover a debt from the proceeds of the deceased's RRSPs, which had been paid to the respondent as the designated beneficiary.

The Court of Appeal held that under section 53 of the Succession Law Reform Act, RRSP proceeds devolve directly to a designated beneficiary and do not form part of the deceased's estate.

Furthermore, the Court held that unpaid creditors of the estate have no claim against the RRSP proceeds in the hands of the beneficiary.

The appeal on the substantive issues was dismissed, but the appeal on costs was allowed, reducing the application judge's costs award.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application to set aside a default judgment for fraud in the amount of $143,462.06.

They argued the amount was not a liquidated sum under Rule 19.04(1)(a) and raised issues regarding service of the statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the amount was supported by a detailed schedule of invoices, service was proper, and the motion judge committed no error in principle in refusing to set aside the default judgment.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time for perfecting its appeal from a Master's order refusing an amendment to a statement of claim.

The appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar for delay.

The court found that the appellant had a continuing intention to appeal, there was sufficient merit to the appeal, the delay was adequately explained by a dispute over the wording of the Master's order, and the alleged prejudice was speculative.

The court granted the motion, set aside the Registrar's order, and extended the time to perfect the appeal.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to add Marsh & Co. Hospitality Realty Inc. as a defendant in an action arising from an agreement of purchase and sale.

The motions judge had dismissed the motion on the basis that Marsh would suffer irremediable prejudice due to the intervening death of a potential witness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the death of a witness did not constitute non-compensable prejudice under Rule 5.04(2), as the appellants could simply commence a separate action against Marsh and have it consolidated.

The Court also found the motions judge erred by weighing evidence regarding the merits of the proposed claim.