Johanna Braden

The appellant, former Chief Financial Officer of the respondent corporation, appealed the dismissal of his application for a change of control payment.

The agreement entitled him to a payment if he ceased to be an officer 'within six months of the date on which control of the Corporation changes'.

The application judge held this required termination to occur after the change of control.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the plain language and commercial purpose of the agreement applied as long as the termination and change of control occurred within six months of each other, regardless of which came first.

The appeal was allowed and the payment ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at a compounded rate of 5.59% semi-annually for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant knew the funds would be reinvested to earn a compound return was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that compound interest is an appropriate measure of damages where the parties knew or should have known the disputed money would bear compound interest.

The appellant, a former foreign exchange trader, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for fraud and breach of contract, and dismissing his counterclaim for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant had executed multiple unauthorized foreign exchange trades resulting in approximately $5.4 million in losses, which he concealed using fictitious credits.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, applied the wrong standard of proof for fraud, and erred in finding the employer could rely on his misrepresentations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient, the correct standard of proof applied, and that the employer's alleged carelessness was not a defence to fraud.

Ontario Hydro brought a motion to quash Denison Mines Ltd.'s appeal from an order dismissing its application for leave to appeal an arbitration award.

Ontario Hydro argued the order was interlocutory and thus not appealable to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the appeal fell within an exception to the general rule against appealing leave decisions because the application judge allegedly declined jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court held that an order refusing leave to appeal under section 45 of the Arbitration Act, 1991 is a final order, not an interlocutory one, regardless of whether it was brought by application or motion.

The appellant general contractor appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages for construction deficiencies and delays in building a commercial office building.

The trial judge awarded $1.7 million for diminution in value due to floor slab deficiencies and $770,000 for lost rental income from prospective tenants due to a five-month construction delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the $1.7 million award, finding the owner did not fail to mitigate its damages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the delay damages for prospective tenants, finding the $770,000 assessment was not supported by the evidence, and reduced that portion of the award to $65,000.