Christopher M. Stanek

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent trustee in bankruptcy on a guarantee signed by the appellants for the respondent's fees.

The motions judge had also directed a reference to the Registrar in Bankruptcy to determine the reasonable quantum of those fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the lack of independent legal advice was not a free-standing defence and there was no evidence the appellants misunderstood the guarantee.

The Court also upheld the motions judge's discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to direct a reference to the Registrar in Bankruptcy.

The appellants, Ontario defendants, sought to stay proceedings in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing there were parallel proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash and the appeal, noting the remarkable feature that the Ontario defendants sought to stay proceedings in their home jurisdiction while their U.S. counterpart denied the proceedings were parallel.

The court found a clear juridical advantage for the respondent to proceed in Ontario, where the contracts were offered and the defendants' assets were located.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $1,173,960 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages for breach of a construction management contract.

The respondent had worked for 17 months without pay before being abruptly terminated on the eve of his entitlement to substantial compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the contract to assess damages, properly declined to consider mitigation as it was not pleaded, and appropriately awarded punitive damages given the appellant's reprehensible conduct.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to repay $47,000 improperly withdrawn from a letter of credit and $7,786.56 for cleaning and grading costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for an alleged overpayment of interest on a vendor take-back mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the letter of credit draw, issue estoppel, or the mortgage interest payments.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against Mercedes-Benz Credit of Canada.

The appellant alleged that Mercedes improperly interfered with his negotiations with his insurer regarding a truck damaged by fire, causing a decrease in the truck's value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's claim that Mercedes improperly interfered, as Mercedes had a legitimate interest in the vehicle and the insurance proceeds.

The appellants appealed an order finding that the dispute forming the subject-matter of the claim fell outside the ambit of the arbitration clause in the minutes of settlement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.