Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The appellant challenged a determination concerning whether a bank account constituted a debt payable to an individual partner or to the partnership for the purposes of Rule 60.08(1.1).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons below and held that the account was a debt payable to the partnership, not to the individual partner among others as a partner.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed from a trial judgment in a civil dispute involving a bank.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's very full reasons and dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the $15,000 paid into court as security for costs of the appeal be paid out with accumulated interest to the respondent's solicitor and applied to costs of the appeal and on the trial.

The appellant asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider its prior jurisprudence on tortious acts by employees of corporations.

The court declined to revisit the policy considerations addressed in earlier appellate authorities and held that any reconsideration should be undertaken by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's conclusion that a payment did not fall within the language of an integration provision.

The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the trial judge erred.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions in a trespass action.

The Court of Appeal held there was evidence supporting the findings and no reasonable basis for appellate intervention.

The limitation defence failed because the trespass was found to be continuing, and the Statute Labour defence failed because the factual premise for that defence was rejected at trial.

The award of punitive damages was upheld and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a trial decision arising from a commercial contract dispute involving nonpayment and an asserted oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed the Cognos test because it was unreasonable to proceed with a contract of over $200,000 without payment protection beyond a lien claim and to continue working without questioning nonpayment.

The court also noted that the appellant did not seek to overcome the trial judge's credibility findings relating to the guarantee issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment awarding punitive damages in addition to general damages for malicious prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held there was no appropriate basis for punitive damages, finding the factors relied on by the trial judge were already captured by the general damages award and that the failure to apologize did not justify additional punishment.

The appeal was allowed only to that extent and was otherwise dismissed.

No costs were ordered in light of divided success.

The appeal concerned whether the evidence supported the trial judge's finding that one appellant induced the respondent to advance money to the corporate appellant by fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the trial judge applied the proper four-part test from United Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Brunet and that each criterion was supported by the evidence.

No basis for appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Two related civil appeals by spouses were heard together from a trial judgment allowing the bank's claims against them.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge's findings of fact were fully supported by the evidence and found no error of law warranting appellate intervention.

Both appeals were dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a motions judge's interpretation of sub-clauses in a head lease and argued that the subtenants' failure to agree to be bound by the head lease constituted a breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation adopted below and found no basis to interfere with the findings on insurance coverage and signage, which were supported by the evidence.

The court further agreed that relief from forfeiture would have been appropriate in any event.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a deficiency judgment arising from repossession and sale of a replacement boat delivered after the original financed boat proved deficient.

The Court of Appeal held that the replacement vessel was not "proceeds" within the meaning of the Personal Property Security Act, but concluded that the parties, by their conduct over several years, modified the original conditional sale contract so that it applied to the replacement boat.

As a result, the secured creditor was entitled to repossess the replacement boat after default and sue for the deficiency.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judgment.

The Court of Appeal held that it was not persuaded the judgment under appeal was erroneous and agreed with the trial judge's full and careful reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal from reasons given by a motion judge and the majority of the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal agreed with those reasons and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were awarded against the appellant.

The appellants challenged trial findings arising from the registration of an altered deed and the respondent's instruction that another solicitor be retained before registration.

The Court of Appeal held the factual findings were supported by the evidence and disclosed no error of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed from a decision for which the court expressly adopted the reasons and result of the judge below.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, lifted the stay, and fixed appeal costs in favour of the respondent at $1,000.

The endorsement contains no further substantive analysis beyond concurrence with the reasons below.

The appellant appealed from a trial decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons of the trial judge.

The respondent was awarded its costs of the appeal.

The endorsement contains no further substantive analysis.

The appellants challenged findings that they engaged in fraudulent conveyances intended to permit the appellant husband to seek termination of child and spousal support obligations.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility were amply supported by the evidence, including suspicious transfers of shares and property for inadequate consideration and in secrecy.

The court also upheld the tracing of proceeds to a residential property and the conclusion that support obligations would not be honoured.

The appeal, including the challenge to the costs award, was dismissed with costs.