By the Court

The appellant challenged the dismissal of a civil claim alleging malicious prosecution and other causes of action.

The court held that the motions judge could properly conclude there was no genuine issue for trial on reasonable and probable grounds, malice, or the remaining claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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 appellant sought leave to appeal sentence.

The court held that the 15-year starting point used by the trial judge may have been at the upper end of the range, but it was not outside the range and no error in principle was established.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The sentence was nonetheless varied to reduce a lifetime firearms prohibition to a 10-year prohibition because no notice had been given.

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 appellants challenged the dismissal of their action against a solicitor and law firm arising from a failed investment in which investors lost all advanced funds.

The court rejected arguments that an earlier judgment established a trust relationship retroactively making the investors the solicitor's clients, and it upheld the trial judge's finding that no solicitor-client or fiduciary relationship existed.

Applying fiduciary duty indicia from appellate and Supreme Court authority, the court held the solicitor did not knowingly assist any breach by the promoter and did not breach any duty of care in relying on the promoter's assurances and corporate instructions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged findings made by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal held there was evidence to support both findings and found no basis to interfere with the conclusions reached below.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 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.