Huscroft J.A.

The appellants, a syndicate of lenders, sued the respondent auditors for negligent and reckless misrepresentation after advancing funds to a company based on audited financial statements that failed to disclose a massive accounting fraud.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing the lenders' negligence claim, finding that the spectre of indeterminate liability negated the auditors' prima facie duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that partial summary judgment was inadvisable in the context of the litigation as a whole due to the real risk of duplicative or inconsistent findings at the upcoming trial on the remaining claims.

The appellant sought leave to bring a class action for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act, alleging the respondent company's public disclosures overstated mining resources and inflated its share price.

The motion judge dismissed the leave application and the certification motion, finding the appellant's expert evidence was completely undermined by the respondent's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge applied an overly strict test by weighing the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory leave test requires a reasoned consideration and weighing of all evidence proffered by both parties to ensure the action has a reasonable possibility of success.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring them vexatious litigants.

They failed to appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the application judge's reasons and the appellants' written arguments, finding no merit to the appeal and agreeing that the appellants' conduct met the definition of vexatious litigants.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant commenced a negligence action against the respondent dentists for substandard dental implant procedures.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred in applying the discoverability test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was discoverable when the appellant's new dentist explained the nature of the problem and advised he would have conducted the procedure differently, which occurred more than two years before the action was commenced.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim in a securities class action to add further particulars of wrongful conduct underlying their misrepresentation claims against the corporate respondent.

The motion judge denied leave for most of the amendments, finding they constituted discrete misrepresentation claims requiring fresh leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act, and were statute-barred under s. 138.14(1).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, with one limited exception permitting the appellants to plead a narrower omission allegation relating to previously pleaded facts.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge should have granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody rather than 1.5:1.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion and appropriately considered the appellant's repeated serious misconduct while in custody.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found no arguable issue for trial regarding its claims for equitable and legal set off.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the equitable set off claims lacked the requisite close connection, and the legal set off claims were either for unliquidated damages or factually complex amounts not readily ascertainable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.