Jerome H. Stanleigh

The applicant sought repayment of funds allegedly held in a foreign exchange trading account maintained with the respondent trading platform.

The respondent claimed the account had a negative balance due to improper trading practices and alleged retroactive losses arising from trades purportedly closed by a liquidity provider more than a month after the original transactions.

After reviewing account records, journal logs, and expert evidence, the court found the disputed trades were not the result of improper trading and that the alleged later closings did not occur.

The court concluded the respondent manipulated records to fabricate losses and retroactively adjust the account balance.

The applicant was awarded damages equal to the account balance shown in the earlier statement, an unpaid contractual bonus, and punitive damages.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge's reasons were inadequate to determine the Limitations Act issue.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the action was misconceived, as it had to be brought as a derivative action and no leave was obtained.

In a wrongful dismissal action, the defendant employer moved for a more particularized disclosure and a further and better affidavit of documents from the plaintiff employee before proceeding with examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff cross‑moved to strike the statement of defence based on the defendant’s repeated failure to attend scheduled examinations for discovery.

The court held that the documents requested by the defendant, including bank statements, credit card records, and passport and immigration documents, were clearly relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings regarding wages, overtime compensation, and the circumstances surrounding the termination of employment.

However, the court also found that the defendant contributed to delay by failing to promptly bring a motion to compel disclosure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested documents and a sworn supplementary affidavit of documents and set a timetable for discoveries and trial preparation, while declining to strike the defence and awarding no costs.

The plaintiff equipment leasing company brought a motion for summary judgment alleging fraud arising from equipment leases entered into with corporate defendants and individuals.

The plaintiff claimed it was induced by false representations to purchase and lease heavy construction equipment, much of which was not recovered after the leases went into default.

One individual defendant asserted she signed documents under the direction of another individual and lacked knowledge of the alleged misrepresentations, raising credibility issues.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a full appreciation of the issues regarding that defendant and required a trial.

However, partial summary judgment was granted against the other individual defendant, who had not defended the action, for the liquidated damages amount.

The appellant challenged a judgment in a real estate commission dispute, arguing it was entitled to commission on sales of property that never closed.

The Court of Appeal held that, on the wording of the relevant documents, commission was payable at four percent only on monies paid to the vendor by the purchaser.

Finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings, legal conclusions, or costs disposition, the court dismissed the appeal subject only to correction of an agreed arithmetical error in the judgment.