Doug LaFramboise

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him personally liable on a promissory note.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding he signed the note, in finding the funds were advanced to him personally rather than to a corporation, and in allowing the late introduction of the original note at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's factual findings and no procedural unfairness, as the appellant had not pleaded forgery or objected to the document's admission at trial.

The appellants appealed a Master’s order refusing to dismiss most aspects of a counterclaim on a summary judgment motion in a mortgage enforcement action.

The counterclaim alleged vandalism, burglary, trespass, breach of contract, conspiracy, and repayment of fees deducted from the mortgage advance.

The appellants argued that the Master misapprehended the evidence and improperly shifted the burden by requiring them to disprove the respondents’ allegations.

The court held that the appellants failed to adduce evidence specifically addressing several pleaded claims or linking their evidence to the alleged causes of action.

The Master applied the correct legal principles and committed no palpable and overriding error.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment, vacate a writ of execution, and extend time to deliver a statement of defence in a negligence and breach of retainer claim arising from a failed mortgage transaction.

The court held the default judgment was irregular because the claim for professional negligence and breach of contract was not a liquidated demand capable of supporting default judgment without assessment of damages.

Although the court found the defendant had likely been personally served, it accepted that the default was not deliberate and that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the writ.

The noting in default was set aside and the defendant was permitted to deliver a defence.

The court also vacated the writ of execution, finding that maintaining it would amount to impermissible pre‑judgment execution akin to a Mareva injunction without the required evidentiary basis.

The plaintiffs, franchisors of fast food restaurants, moved under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for orders freezing the defendants’ bank accounts and compelling disclosure of financial records after alleging diversion of franchise fees.

The court considered whether the allegedly diverted funds constituted a specific fund capable of preservation under Rule 45.02, and whether the balance of convenience supported interim relief.

Finding a serious issue to be tried and drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s erasure of a laptop hard drive containing relevant records, the court concluded the plaintiffs had a strong claim to the disputed funds.

The defendants’ bank accounts were ordered frozen and full banking records disclosed.

Requests for a Mareva injunction against the defendant’s residence and non-competition relief were refused due to insufficient evidence.