Arthur Barat

The appellant contractor sued the respondent bank for misrepresentation after the bank failed to advance a $150,000 loan to a mall owner to pay for renovations.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the bank had informed the contractor that the loan was conditional on a guarantor's signature.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The bank had represented that the loan was a sure thing and that the signature was a mere formality, knowing this was untrue and that the contractor would rely on it.

Judgment was entered for the contractor for the undisputed contract amount plus costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in his findings at paragraphs 21 and 33 of his reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were reasonably supported by the evidence.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $8,250 plus disbursements, GST, and the costs of maintaining a letter of credit.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a motions judge's order regarding a third party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a claim for contribution and indemnity is not a claim for the recovery of damages within the meaning of s. 14(1) of the Condominium Act.

The court set aside the relevant paragraph of the motions judge's order and awarded costs to the appellant.