Brian Casey

The appellant restaurant appealed Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance Act assessments for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Minister assessed the appellant for employer contributions and premiums based on electronic tips paid to servers.

The appellant argued that it did not "pay" the tips to the servers, as it merely distributed them.

The Tax Court of Canada applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Canadian Pacific, finding that the employer had possession of the electronic tips and remitted them to the employees, meaning the tips were "paid" by the employer.

The appeals were dismissed.

The plaintiffs, principals of a trucking business, sued HSBC Bank Canada seeking declarations that their personal guarantees were void.

HSBC counterclaimed against the plaintiffs and others for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and conversion, alleging they provided false audited financial statements, forged signatures, and fictitious accounts receivable to induce the bank to lend over $9 million.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim and granted judgment in favour of HSBC on its counterclaims, finding the defendants liable for over $10 million in damages for misrepresentation, nearly $4 million for conversion, and $100,000 in punitive damages.

The appellants appealed an order finding them in contempt of a receivership order.

They argued the motion judge erred by declining to draw an adverse inference against the receiver for failing to call two independent witnesses, and that this failure reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that drawing an adverse inference is discretionary and the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in his findings of fact and credibility.

The appellant hospital appealed a partial summary judgment awarding the respondent architectural firm over $1 million in a construction lien action.

The motion judge had relied on an 'admission' letter sent by the hospital following a pre-trial conference.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, finding that the motion judge erred by relying on the pre-trial communication contrary to Rule 50.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also found that affidavit evidence from a peer-review architect raised a genuine issue for trial regarding the completion of the contract and the validity of the invoices.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to a former chief financial officer and consultant arising from a stock option plan.

The central issue was whether a termination provision ending options when the optionee ceased to be an employee applied to a participant who was found at trial to be a consultant rather than a true employee.

The court held that, on a fair reading of the plan as a whole, the terms 'employee' and 'eligible participant' were used interchangeably, so the termination provision applied to all persons granted options under the plan.

Because the respondent did not exercise his options before ending his relationship with the company, his rights under the option agreement had terminated.

The appeal was allowed, the trial judgment was set aside, and the action was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged convictions arising from historical abuse allegations at an orphanage, arguing abuse of process and unreasonable verdicts.

The Court upheld the rejection of the abuse of process claim and maintained the conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

However, applying the unreasonable verdict standard under s. 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, the Court held that the indecent assault convictions could not reasonably be supported given blatant falsehoods, material inconsistencies, possible collusion between complainants, and unreliable photographic identification.

The indecent assault convictions were quashed.