Charles Sinclair

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of the appeal after its counsel was removed from the record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order terminating her membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative.

She argued there was a lack of procedural fairness before the Board and that the motions judge erred by applying a standard of patent unreasonableness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness and concluding that, despite misstating the standard of review, the motions judge had actually applied the correct reasonableness standard and properly found the Board's decision to be reasonable.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order, arguing the motion judge lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of pleadings in the motion record and issues with the style of cause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the pleadings were before the motion judge and the style of cause challenge could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellant brought an action against the lawyer who represented his child's mother in a custody dispute, alleging the lawyer committed criminal acts including perjury and fraud.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims against a solicitor and other defendants, as well as the award of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility regarding the solicitor.

The court also rejected the claim against the other defendants, noting that any vendor's lien was extinguished when the bank exercised its security.

The award of substantial indemnity costs was upheld due to the appellant's attack on the respondent's character.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing the claim against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's analysis that there was no genuine issue for trial on the question of malice.

The appeal was dismissed.