Jarvis K. Postnikoff

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering the return of the respondent's investment funds.

The appellant argued the trial was unfair because he was self-represented, that there was insufficient evidence the respondent made the advances, and that there was no legal justification for returning the investment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the trial process, sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's findings, and that the appellant's failure to account for the advanced funds justified the order for their return.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for breach of fiduciary duty and dismissing his counterclaim.

The appellant argued he was not a fiduciary, that any such relationship had terminated, that the respondent had unclean hands, and that his counterclaim should have succeeded because no defence was filed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a trust relationship existed and continued, that the unclean hands doctrine did not apply, and that the appellant still bore the burden of proving his counterclaim despite the lack of a defence.