Helen A. Daley

The City of Windsor appealed a decision finding it had no interest in land referable to certain parking spaces.

On appeal, the City attempted to argue for the first time that it had statutory rights of enforcement under s. 41.1(10) of the Planning Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the new argument could not be raised due to appellate practice and an insufficient factual record.

The court found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the City had no interest in the land.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims against multiple respondents, which arose from prior matrimonial proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the claims were an impermissible collateral attack and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The court also refused to admit proposed fresh evidence and awarded costs to each respondent.

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.