Lake)

The appellant challenged a determination concerning whether a bank account constituted a debt payable to an individual partner or to the partnership for the purposes of Rule 60.08(1.1).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons below and held that the account was a debt payable to the partnership, not to the individual partner among others as a partner.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a trial decision arising from a commercial contract dispute involving nonpayment and an asserted oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed the Cognos test because it was unreasonable to proceed with a contract of over $200,000 without payment protection beyond a lien claim and to continue working without questioning nonpayment.

The court also noted that the appellant did not seek to overcome the trial judge's credibility findings relating to the guarantee issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.