John W. McDonald

The appellant husband appealed a divorce judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of over $7 million and $35,000 monthly in spousal support.

He challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the ownership of the matrimonial home, the quantum of spousal support, unconscionability under the Family Law Act, and the disbursement of funds held in court.

He also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal conclusions, and noting the fresh evidence could have been discovered with due diligence.

The appellants appealed an order striking out their proposed class action statements of claim for oppression against the respondents.

The claims alleged that a recapitalization plan was oppressive to minority shareholders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the prospectus explicitly warned of the financial risks, the recapitalization plan benefited the company by preventing immediate collapse, and the appellants failed to plead any specific loss or damage.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice C.S. Glithero.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the appeal, agreeing with the analysis and conclusion of the lower court judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,200.

The appellant, a charity licensed to sell break open lottery tickets (BOTs), brought a class action seeking restitution of a provincial administration fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional indirect tax.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment to strike the restitution claim, adducing evidence that the fee was borne by consumers through a reduced prize board, not by the charities.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the appellant failed to adduce evidence showing a genuine issue for trial regarding who bore the burden of the fee or its entitlement to restitution.

Following an appeal, the court received written submissions regarding the quantum of costs.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the appeal involved a novel issue of law or public interest, but agreed that the respondents' claimed costs were excessive.

Costs were fixed on a partial-indemnity basis at $15,000 payable to each of the two respondent groups.

The appellant, an investor who purchased shares in the secondary market, sought to certify a class proceeding against the issuer, underwriters, and auditors for negligent misrepresentation in a prospectus.

The motions judge dismissed the action, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action as they did not establish a special relationship giving rise to a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the pleadings lacked material facts to support a duty of care owed to secondary market purchasers by the auditors or underwriters.

The defendants appealed an order directing that a certification motion in a class proceeding be heard in Hamilton based on the balance of convenience.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that rule 37.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applies to determine the venue of a certification motion and that section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 does not oust that rule.

The court further held that the balance of convenience is not the proper test for granting leave under rule 37.03(4) to hear a motion elsewhere.

The appellants challenged a judgment upholding a municipality's distraint of chattels for unpaid taxes.

The Court of Appeal held the motion judge was entitled to find that the taxpayer had at least constructive possession of the chattels at the time of distraint, notwithstanding that the taxpayer had vacated the premises where they were kept.

The court further held that the sale of the chattels occurred before the taxpayer's bankruptcy, rendering the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the cited appellate authority inapplicable.

The appeal was dismissed.