By the Court

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 self-represented appellant argued on appeal that trial counsel failed to put certain evidence before the court, or alternatively that the trial judge failed to apprehend evidence concerning ability to pay.

The court held that if counsel failed to adduce evidence, any remedy was not through the appeal.

It further found nothing in the record or the trial reasons to call into question the judge's treatment of the evidence or to suggest bias.

The appeal was 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 appellants challenged the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions in a trespass action.

The Court of Appeal held there was evidence supporting the findings and no reasonable basis for appellate intervention.

The limitation defence failed because the trespass was found to be continuing, and the Statute Labour defence failed because the factual premise for that defence was rejected at trial.

The award of punitive damages was upheld and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant sought habeas corpus relief arising from a parole-related matter.

The Court of Appeal held that habeas corpus is a discretionary remedy and found no reviewable error in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The court further held that the Parole Board Appeal Tribunal could grant the remedy sought without considering the Charter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment awarding punitive damages in addition to general damages for malicious prosecution.

The Court of Appeal held there was no appropriate basis for punitive damages, finding the factors relied on by the trial judge were already captured by the general damages award and that the failure to apologize did not justify additional punishment.

The appeal was allowed only to that extent and was otherwise dismissed.

No costs were ordered in light of divided success.

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 appeal concerned whether the evidence supported the trial judge's finding that one appellant induced the respondent to advance money to the corporate appellant by fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the trial judge applied the proper four-part test from United Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Brunet and that each criterion was supported by the evidence.

No basis for appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a trial judgment declaring that the respondent held a right of way over identified parts of a Kingston property.

The Court of Appeal held that the matter was largely fact-driven and that the trial judge's findings, including actual notice of the longer easements, were amply supported by the record.

The court further upheld the trial judge's interpretation of s. 15 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, s. 26 of the Registry Act, and the doctrines of extinguishment and abandonment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a motions judge's interpretation of sub-clauses in a head lease and argued that the subtenants' failure to agree to be bound by the head lease constituted a breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the interpretation adopted below and found no basis to interfere with the findings on insurance coverage and signage, which were supported by the evidence.

The court further agreed that relief from forfeiture would have been appropriate in any event.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged the trial judgment.

The Court of Appeal held that it was not persuaded the judgment under appeal was erroneous and agreed with the trial judge's full and careful reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged the reasons of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that any error had been shown on the facts of the case.

The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.

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 appellant challenged the registration of a Finnish judgment.

The Court of Appeal held there was no dispute that the appellant had been properly notified, when served with the default judgment, of the automatic right to a trial on the merits in the original proceedings and had failed to avail himself of that right.

Finding no error in the motion judge's decision to register the foreign judgment, the court dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant insurer argued on appeal that a 1989 letter did not create a binding agreement and, alternatively, that the respondent's claim was out of time after the insurer indicated in 1991 it would no longer be bound.

The court held the trial judge properly relied not only on the letter itself but also on the agent's cross-examination evidence acknowledging an agreement.

The court further held that the 1991 letter constituted repudiation, but because the respondent did not accept that repudiation, the contract remained in force and the respondent was not required to commence proceedings by the date asserted by the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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.

The appellant nurse appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding her guilty of professional misconduct relating to the misappropriation of narcotics.

During the discipline hearing, it was revealed that a panel member served on a hospital committee with the principal witness against the appellant, but this was not disclosed until deliberations had begun.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the undisclosed relationship and subsequent conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias that vitiated the panel's decision.

Given the circumstantial evidence, poor hospital record-keeping, and the passage of time, the Court quashed the decision and ordered a stay of proceedings rather than a rehearing.