Douglas G. Christie

Following a decision ordering a new trial, the court issued an addendum on costs.

The court clarified that the new trial would only extend to claims that formed the subject-matter of the appeal, and stayed the execution of a damages award against one respondent pending the new trial.

The costs of the first trial were reserved to the presiding justice at the new trial.

The appellant was awarded costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, fixed at $36,000 on a partial indemnity basis, specifically for the motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment that found it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee and dismissed its claims for breach of fiduciary duty.

On appeal, the appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence showing the respondent had been criminally charged with defrauding the appellant of over $200,000 through a secret scheme involving a third-party corporation.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it met the Palmer criteria, including due diligence, as the evidence was largely uncovered through a subsequent police investigation.

Concluding that the fresh evidence could have decisively affected the trial judge's findings on the respondent's credibility and loyalty, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

A motion was brought to determine the proper appellate jurisdiction for appeals and cross-appeals arising from judgments on construction lien and breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal held that section 71(1) of the Act applies to both lien claims and trust claims, meaning all such appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

The motion was granted and the appeals were transferred to the Divisional Court.