Katherine A. McEachern

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $3.8 million for breach of a real estate joint venture agreement.

The appellant argued the respondent was disentitled to the funds for trading in real estate without a license and sought disgorgement of a commission.

The respondent cross-appealed for punitive damages and a higher rate of prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the respondent was exempt from licensing requirements as it was dealing with its own interest, the commission was properly disclosed, and the appellant's conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim against a bank manager personally.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no evidence that the manager acted outside the course and scope of his employment with the bank, a position confirmed by the bank itself.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The tenant held a commercial lease containing an option to purchase the shopping centre.

The tenant subsequently subleased the premises for the entirety of the term.

The landlord sought a declaration that the option to purchase was no longer exercisable by the tenant, arguing the sublease constituted an assignment in law that carried the option with it.

The application judge granted the declaration.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that while a sublease for the entire term may be an assignment in law, an option to purchase is severable and does not automatically pass with the assignment if the parties intended otherwise.

The court found the parties clearly intended to preserve the option with the tenant.