Gino Morga

Following the partial dismissal of an appeal and the remittal of a breach of contract issue for trial, the parties made written submissions on whether security should remain in place pending the trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the issue of security should be decided by the trial court.

The court ordered the security to remain in place for 60 days to allow the appellant to move for security in the trial court.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant lost on the primary issue of oppression but succeeded in obtaining a new trial on an unresolved breach of contract issue.

The court found that responsibility for the failure to litigate the contract issue was divided between the parties.

Given the unusual circumstances and divided success, the court concluded that a fair costs award was for each side to bear its own costs throughout the proceedings.

The appellant real estate company sued the respondents for oppression under the Business Corporations Act and for breach of contract after being locked out of a condominium project following a corporate restructuring.

The trial judge found oppression and awarded compensation but did not address the breach of contract claim.

The Divisional Court reversed the oppression finding and dismissed the entire action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the oppression claim, finding the restructuring was not unfairly prejudicial because the appellant was indemnified.

However, the Court found the Divisional Court erred in dismissing the unadjudicated breach of contract claim and remitted it for trial.

The appellants purchased a new townhouse and discovered dampness in the basement due to a cement slab that did not meet the Ontario Building Code depth requirement.

They sued the builders and the Ontario New Home Warranty Plan after rejecting a proposed sealant solution.

The trial judge awarded $29,700 in damages against the builders but dismissed the claim against the Plan, finding the appellants failed to mitigate by refusing a reasonable solution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's factual findings and damages assessment.

The appellant appealed a judgment involving a breach of trust and fiduciary duty, arguing the trial judge erred in describing mortgages as providing for compound interest upon default and in awarding compound interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material factual errors and holding that an award of compound interest was fully warranted under the court's equitable jurisdiction due to the breach of trust and fiduciary duty.

Leave to appeal costs was refused, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, guaranteed an equipment lease for a Michigan golf course.

Upon default, the respondent obtained a summary judgment in Michigan.

The appellant did not appeal the Michigan judgment but resisted its enforcement in Ontario, arguing the lease charged a criminal rate of interest contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Michigan proceedings were fair and the appellant failed to present evidence capable of supporting his public policy defence under the Criminal Code or the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

Due to the sudden unavailability of a justice of the peace, the Regional Senior Justice of the Peace directed the Clerk of the Court to adjourn matters.

The respondent's case was adjourned by the Clerk, and the respondent successfully applied for an order prohibiting further proceedings in the Provincial Offences Court.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the prohibition order, relying on the reasons in R. v. 1283499 Ontario Inc., and remitted the matter for trial.

The respondent was charged under the Liquor Licence Act.

Due to the unavailability of a justice of the peace, a clerk of the court adjourned the matter.

The respondent successfully applied for an order of prohibition, arguing the court lost jurisdiction.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while the clerk had no authority to adjourn the matter, section 31 of the Provincial Offences Act preserved jurisdiction over the offence despite the court's failure to act.