Brian Casey

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 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.