45 total
Appeal from refusal of adjournment dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with discretion.
The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to refuse a motion for an adjournment.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed; statement of claim lacked sufficient facts to support bald allegation of negligent misrepresentation.
The appellant appealed an order striking out portions of its statement of claim against two defendants.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the amended statement of claim lacked sufficient facts to support the bald allegation of negligent misrepresentation.
Appeal allowed and Rule 21 order set aside due to factual disputes and confusion over corporate parties.
The appellant appealed an order made pursuant to a Rule 21 motion.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the matter was not suitable for a Rule 21 determination due to numerous factual disputes and overwhelming confusion regarding the identities of the corporate parties and the tenant.
Appeal on damages for lost chance dismissed; cross-appeal on costs granted to apply Rule 49.
The appellant was retained by the respondents to negotiate scientific research tax credits on a commission basis.
The respondents breached the contract by terminating the appellant without notice.
The trial judge awarded $45,000 in damages based on the lost chance of success, which the appellant appealed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on damages, finding the trial judge's quantification reasonable.
However, the Court granted the respondents' cross-appeal on costs, holding that the trial judge erred by leaving the determination of a Rule 49 offer to the assessment officer, and awarded costs to the respondents from the date of the offer.
Final child support variation order against out-of-province respondent set aside; only provisional order permitted without attornment.
The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a final child support variation order made after he moved to British Columbia.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and extended the time to appeal the original variation order.
The majority held that under sections 17(1) and 18(2) of the Divorce Act, a final order cannot be made against an out-of-province respondent unless they attorn to the jurisdiction or consent; otherwise, only a provisional order can be made.
The matter was remitted for a rehearing.