Harry W. McMurtry

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that declined to grant specific performance of a shareholders' agreement regarding his shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that post-judgment events had largely overtaken the appeal and that the trial judge was not asked to address the applicability of the agreement to the appellant's personal shares separately.

The Court also declined to interpret the term 'voluntary retirement' in the agreement, leaving it open for any subsequent litigation regarding share valuation.

The plaintiffs engaged the defendant as an independent contractor to provide systems engineering services to their clients.

The defendant subsequently went to work directly for one of the clients.

The plaintiffs sued for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence.

After the trial, the trial judge raised new theories of liability on her own motion—duty of good faith, unconscionability, and implied contractual terms—and found the defendant liable on those unpleaded bases while dismissing the pleaded claims.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it is fundamentally unfair to find liability on theories that were never pleaded and not subjected to the adversarial process.

The cross-appeal regarding fiduciary duty and breach of confidence was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order striking their claim for breach of fiduciary duty against their former solicitors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that a breach of fiduciary duty requires a breakdown of trust and loyalty, such as dishonesty or a conflict of interest.

It does not extend to situations where only the quality of advice or representation is at issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The respondent client sued his stockbroker and brokerage firm for failing to execute a stop-sell order on shares, resulting in significant financial loss.

The trial judge found the appellants liable and awarded damages based on the difference between the stop-sell price and the price when the respondent discovered the error, plus substantial indemnity costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the liability and damages findings, concluding the trial judge's assessment of credibility and mitigation was reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, setting aside the substantial indemnity award and substituting a lower amount, as allegations of insider trading were not pursued at trial.

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

After receiving submissions from the parties, the court fixed the appellants' costs on a partial indemnity basis at $2,250 for the action and $10,000 for the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent OPP officers brought a civil action against senior officers, alleging they were transferred as a form of disguised discipline.

The appellants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the matter was governed by the collective agreement and statutory scheme.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, holding that the Police Services Act and the Public Service Act form a complete code governing police discipline, leaving no residual jurisdiction for the civil courts.

The plaintiffs brought an action relating to their employment as police officers.

The defendants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was covered by a collective agreement.

The defendants appealed the dismissal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, holding that an order dismissing a jurisdictional challenge under Rule 21.01(3)(a) is a final order because it finally disposes of the defendants' right to raise the jurisdictional defence.