David Milosevic

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion for an adjournment and the dismissal of its action against the respondent municipality.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not granting the adjournment to allow the appellant's principal to sell his home to fund legal counsel.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error, noting the appellant had already received two adjournments totalling a year and had failed to secure counsel.

The Court also declined to admit fresh evidence regarding the subsequent sale of the home, finding it did not meet the criteria for admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a fugitive from justice convicted of securities offences in absentia, appealed orders refusing to set aside a noting in default and granting default judgment against her for over $770,000.

The respondents had sued for breach of contract and fraud related to unfulfilled share agreements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's refusal to set aside the noting in default, finding the appellant's delay was tactical and her explanation for failing to defend lacked credibility.

The court also upheld the default judgment, finding no material inconsistencies in the evidence, but reduced the prejudgment interest rate on concession.

The appellants appealed a judgment, arguing issues with service and seeking to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion for fresh evidence, finding there was an ample basis for the motion judge to conclude the appellants were properly served and noting they had not requested an adjournment.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his malicious prosecution action on a motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the appellant failed to establish a triable issue regarding two required elements: that the defendants initiated the proceedings and that they did so out of malice or an improper purpose.

The court found no evidence of malice and concluded that the police independently decided to lay charges after assessing the situation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.