James C. Orr

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for the tort of deceit and ordering them to pay damages equivalent to US $7,832,083.00.

The trial judge found that the appellants falsely represented that computer equipment purchased from the respondents was destined for educational ministries in China and Australia in order to obtain special discounted pricing, when in fact the equipment was diverted to the grey market.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants made false representations, that the respondents relied on them, and that the deceit caused the respondents' loss.

The parties were involved in a joint venture agreement to develop land.

When the lender demanded repayment of its loan, the appellants did not pay their share.

The respondents used a non-arm's length company to purchase the loan and foreclose on the lands, appropriating the appellants' investment.

The appellants sued for breach of the joint venture agreement.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that none of the parties relied on the agreement's provisions and instead pursued self-interest outside its terms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, ruling that a party cannot enforce an agreement it has demonstrated an intention not to be bound by.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's decision refusing their motion to amend their Statement of Claim in a wrongful dismissal and share repurchase dispute.

The Master had denied the amendment on several grounds, including prejudice, election, and withdrawal of an admission.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master was clearly wrong because he applied the wrong test for prejudice under Rule 26.01 and improperly weighed evidence and made factual findings, which is inappropriate on a motion to amend pleadings.

The court directed the plaintiffs to prepare an amended Statement of Claim, excluding certain paragraphs that offended the rule in Foss v. Harbottle.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a United States judgment against them for costs incurred in removing hazardous substances from a copper mine.

The appellants argued the summary judgment should not have been granted due to a denial of natural justice and public policy concerns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's conclusions that the appellants had adequate notice and opportunity to defend the US proceeding but chose to walk away.

The plaintiff, an experienced investor, invested in special warrants and special shares of two private companies on the advice of his broker.

The broker failed to warn him of the risks associated with these investments, including the risk that the planned initial public offerings might never take place.

The plaintiff lost his entire investment and sued the broker and her firm for negligence.

The trial judge found the defendants liable but reduced the damages by 50% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in signing subscription agreements without reading them.

The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the broker breached her duty to warn and that her misrepresentation precluded the defendants from relying on the subscription agreements to raise an estoppel.

The appellant, a single-purpose company incorporated for an acquisition, appealed a decision finding that solicitor-client privilege was lost due to a prima facie case of fraud.

The motion judge found that the appellant used corporate funds to benefit itself to the detriment of creditors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that because the finding of fraud embraced the entirety of the transaction, the usual two-stage process and document-by-document review were unnecessary.

The appellant appealed a decision finding a breach of trust regarding a cottage property but ordering the trust wound up and the cottage sold.

The Court of Appeal held that the breach did not result in the failure of the trust or damages, and therefore the application judge erred in winding up the trust and ordering the sale.

The appeal was dismissed subject to varying the judgment to strike out those orders.

The request for a resulting trust was denied as the trust had not failed.