Benjamin Salsberg

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which directed the Registrar to carry out a proposal to refuse and revoke their motor vehicle dealer registrations.

The Tribunal had held that the Registrar had the onus to show he believed there were reasonable grounds for the proposal, and that the Tribunal owed deference to the Registrar's decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by misapprehending its role.

Under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, the Tribunal is required to make its own assessment of the facts and has the explicit statutory authority to substitute its opinion for that of the Registrar, owing no deference to the Registrar's initial proposal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Justice Ground, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

The decision was based on the reasons provided in the companion endorsement in Court File C44279.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

The appellants appealed an order allowing a receiver to sell a property free of their leases.

The receiver conceded that the motion judge's statement of the law was overly broad and that equitable considerations should have been weighed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and remitted the matter back to the Superior Court of Justice, noting the appellants were not given a proper opportunity to lead evidence on the equities.

The solicitor appealed from an order dismissing his motion to oppose the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report.

The Assessment Officer had disallowed the solicitor's claims for payment regarding 'extras'—opinions on matters handled by other solicitors—because there was no written retainer, no interim billing, and a historical relationship where the client was not billed for such consultations.

The Divisional Court found no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence by the Assessment Officer or the reviewing judge, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, alleging that the loan agreements charged a criminal rate of interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that more than $78,000 was advanced, meaning the illegal rate of interest was not proven.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's award of substantial indemnity costs, which were in accordance with the loan agreements.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order that denied them costs despite being successful on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The motions judge had denied costs on the basis that counsel intentionally underestimated the length of the motion to get on the list.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision as it extended previous case law by denying costs to successful parties who had not misled the judge hearing the motion.

The court also found that the appropriate use of cost sanctions for time misestimates is an issue of public importance.

The appellant appealed an order of the motion judge who declined to enforce a settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was ample evidence to support the motion judge's findings of fact and exercise of discretion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that interpreted a share purchase agreement to include an unexpected income tax refund as an 'account receivable' and found them liable for a bankruptcy dividend distribution.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the agreement was unambiguous and did not contemplate the tax refund as an account receivable.

The Court also found that the bankruptcy dividend had been paid in full and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim for additional items.

The action was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a judgment finding no evidentiary basis to treat a third party as an agent authorized to make representations and warranties on behalf of one of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal held there was no evidence of any statement conferring authority and that the conduct relied upon did not raise a genuine issue of agency.

Agreeing with the motions judge, the court dismissed the appeal with costs.