Eleanore A. Cronk

Following a successful appeal, the appellants submitted a Bill of Costs which the respondents consented to.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $13,293.91 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The court also directed an amendment to the reasons for judgment to add co-counsel for the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for failing to complete defence medical examinations.

The Court of Appeal found that while the appellant had been dilatory and uncooperative, dismissing the action is a measure of last resort.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the dismissal, ordering the appellant to pay $1,287.50 for a missed appointment, and requiring him to complete the examinations on the first available date, failing which the action would be dismissed.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict that dismissed his motor vehicle accident claim, finding no negligence on the part of the respondent driver and assessing damages at zero.

The appellant argued the verdict was perverse and that the trial judge made several procedural and instructional errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence based on credibility issues and that the trial judge made no errors in the conduct of the trial or her instructions to the jury.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.

The appellants submitted costs submissions, while the respondent provided no response.

The court fixed costs in the amount of $20,000 plus disbursements and G.S.T.

The parties, two dentists, practised together under a Cost Sharing Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After their relationship broke down, the respondent sued for breach of contract, conversion, and malicious prosecution.

The appellant moved for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, which the motions judge dismissed on the basis that the malicious prosecution claim fell outside the arbitration agreement and the matters could not easily be separated.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a finding that a dispute falls outside an arbitration agreement is not barred by s. 7(6).

The Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the refusal to grant a partial stay.

The landlord entered into an agreement to sell a commercial property to a third-party purchaser, subject to the tenant's right of first refusal.

After the tenant indicated it would not pay the proposed price, the landlord and purchaser entered into a second agreement without the right of first refusal condition.

The tenant subsequently exercised its right of first refusal, leading both the tenant and the purchaser to seek specific performance.

The trial judge granted specific performance to the purchaser, finding the right of first refusal void for uncertainty.

The Court of Appeal allowed the tenant's appeal, holding that the right of first refusal was enforceable, converted into an equitable interest when the landlord accepted the purchaser's offer, and was not waived by the tenant's negotiating tactics.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision setting aside a conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of explanation for near relatives or the finding that the appellant was unable to pay his debts at the relevant time.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages arising from sexual contact in 1972.

The defendant sought to add the plaintiff's parents and former boyfriend as third parties, arguing they were responsible for the plaintiff's damages due to subsequent abuse.

The motions judge dismissed the motion to add the third parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that section 1 of the Negligence Act only permits claims for contribution and indemnity between concurrent wrongdoers, not independent tortfeasors whose acts occurred at different times.

Following the release of the majority reasons for judgment dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

Having regard to the respondents' success, the complexity and novelty of the issues, and the equities between the parties, the court awarded the respondents their costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $38,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the conflicting evidence, inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, and adequately explained his preference for the complainant's version of events.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant's second-degree murder conviction was previously overturned on appeal and a manslaughter conviction was substituted.

The Court of Appeal sentenced the appellant for manslaughter arising from the shooting of a convenience store owner during an armed robbery.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the appellant's extensive criminal record, his aboriginal status, and the time already served in pre-sentence and post-sentence custody, the Court imposed a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, equivalent to a 14-year sentence had it been imposed at the original trial.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order were also imposed.

The respondent, a partner in an accounting firm, accepted a directorship with a corporate client of the firm.

While he disclosed the directorship and remitted his director's fees to the partnership, he failed to disclose his entitlement to shares and stock options under the client's key employee stock plan.

After the partnership dissolved, the appellants sought an accounting of these benefits.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent breached his fiduciary duty and his statutory duty of disclosure under the Partnerships Act.

The court found that the shares and options were compensatory benefits derived from a transaction concerning the partnership and from the use of a partnership business connection.

The respondent was ordered to account to his former partners for their proportionate share of the benefits realized.

The appellant Bank appealed a decision granting priority to the respondent Charter's purchase-money security interest.

The debtor company had amalgamated, and there was confusion over its correct corporate name.

Charter registered its interest against the pre-amalgamation name, while the Bank later registered against the new name.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pre-amalgamation name continued to have legal existence based on the amalgamation agreement, making Charter's registration valid.

Furthermore, the Bank suffered no material prejudice as a search would have revealed Charter's interest.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision finding them liable for computer-generated cheques.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the conclusion was dictated by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Boma Manufacturing Ltd. v. C.I.B.C. The Court rejected the argument that a distinction should be drawn because the cheques were entirely produced by computer.

The appellants, a privately appointed receiver and his company, appealed a trial judgment ordering an accounting and denying receiver's fees due to egregious breaches of fiduciary duty and self-dealing in the receivership of a horse farming operation.

The respondents cross-appealed, seeking the equitable remedy of tracing regarding a specific farm property improperly acquired by the receiver's nephew.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding overwhelming evidence of the receiver's complete failure to appreciate his duties, including acting in conflict of interest.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal in part, granting the respondents the right to trace the proceeds realized from the farm property and ordering the receiver to disgorge any profits.

The appellant media organization sought access to exhibits from a concluded murder trial to produce a television program.

The application judge dismissed the request, concluding that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant access simply for public access purposes once the open justice requirement had been met and the exhibits had been transferred to the police.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the court's jurisdiction over its own records is anchored in the public policy favouring public access and does not vanish simply because the exhibits were filed in open court or transferred to the police.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a hearing on the merits.

The appellants sought to claim a federal sales tax refund belonging to a bankrupt company, relying on assignments made prior to and during the bankruptcy.

The trustee in bankruptcy held the refund and argued the assignments were invalid.

The Court of Appeal held that the tax refund was a 'Crown debt' under the Financial Administration Act, which prohibits the assignment of such debts.

The court also found that the general power of a trustee to sell assets under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act does not override this specific prohibition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing and transferring firearms after selling starter pistols to an undercover officer.

The appellant argued the pistols were deemed not to be firearms under s. 84(3)(b) of the Criminal Code because they were designed exclusively for firing blank cartridges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the pistols were designed exclusively for blanks, the appellant knew the officer intended to convert them to fire live ammunition, thus failing the second conjunctive requirement of the exemption.

The appellant husband appealed a motion judge's finding that a binding settlement had been reached in a divorce proceeding.

The parties had exchanged correspondence regarding an equalization payment, the payment of the children's lawyer's fees, and the handling of life insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the parties had reached a consensus ad idem on all essential terms, noting that the husband's self-serving affidavit did not raise a triable issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent wife.

The appellant was convicted of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger the life of a police officer and related offences after firing a handgun while fleeing from an attempted stop.

He appealed his convictions on several grounds relating to jury instructions, including the elements of the offence, reasonable doubt, and jury exhortation, all of which were dismissed.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by allowing the police officer to make an improper victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing and by imposing an unduly harsh sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal, finding the victim impact statement procedurally and substantively improper, and reduced the sentence to better reflect the principle of rehabilitation.