Eugene Meehan

The appellants operated a senior citizens residence and borrowed funds through successive mortgages arranged by Morguard.

The trial judge found that Morguard and its officers committed fraud, deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty by overstating discharge amounts, charging excessive undisclosed fees, and hiding a corporate officer's personal involvement in the loans.

The trial judge awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages.

On appeal, the appellants sought punitive damages and increased compensation, while the respondents cross-appealed liability and damages, relying on a release executed by the parties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeals, upholding the trial judge's findings and concluding that the release was properly set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellants, the chief and band council of the Wasauksing First Nation, appealed a decision dismissing their application to rectify the corporate records of Wasausink Lands Inc. (WLI) to reflect that all band members were members of WLI and the band council were its directors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the factual basis for rectification was not established and that s. 309(1) of the Corporations Act is not intended for fundamental corporate restructuring.

The Court also declined to impose a constructive trust as it was raised for the first time on appeal, and rejected the claim for a constitutional exemption based on aboriginal rights.

The respondent employees were transferred from the Ottawa Police Force to the City of Ottawa.

They alleged that prior to the transfer, the City entered into a pre-employment agreement guaranteeing they would retain their previous terms and conditions of employment.

After the transfer, they were placed under a collective agreement with reduced benefits and brought an action for damages.

The City moved to strike the claim, arguing the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the essential character of the dispute concerned a pre-employment contract, not the collective agreement, meaning the courts had jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the factual dispute regarding the existence of the contract could not be resolved on a preliminary motion to strike.

The appellant broadcaster sought injunctive relief against parties assisting Canadian residents to subscribe to and decode U.S. direct-to-home satellite programming.

The appeal turned on whether s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act imposed a blanket prohibition on decoding encrypted subscription programming signals unless authorized by a lawful distributor in Canada, or only prohibited decoding of signals from licensed Canadian distributors.

Applying the modern contextual approach to statutory interpretation, the Court held the provision unambiguously creates an absolute prohibition with a limited exception and aligns with the broader broadcasting and copyright regime.

The Court refused to answer the stated Charter questions because the record did not support constitutional adjudication.

The respondent invited tenders for a construction project and awarded the contract to the lowest bidder, whose bid was non-compliant.

The tender documents included a privilege clause stating that the lowest or any tender would not necessarily be accepted.

The appellant, who submitted the lowest compliant bid, sued for breach of contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Contract A arose upon the submission of the tender, and it contained an implied term that only compliant bids would be accepted.

The privilege clause did not override this implied term, though it did allow the owner to choose a compliant bid other than the lowest one.

The appeal was allowed and damages awarded to the appellant.