Lawrence J. Burns

The appellant appealed a trial judgment concerning a property boundary dispute.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by deciding the matter based on the equitable doctrine of rectification without allowing him to address it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice as the validity of the 1962 document was in issue and the appellant had abandoned his adverse possession claim late in the trial.

The court also upheld the awards for special damages for fence construction and punitive damages for reprehensible behaviour.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim for breach of fiduciary duty arising from commercial negotiations.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the law of fiduciary obligations to parties negotiating towards an agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that none of the indicia of a fiduciary duty were present, as the appellant did not repose trust of a confidential nature and was not vulnerable.

The landlord appealed a trial judgment declaring the tenant's rights under a commercial lease.

The trial judge had found in favour of the tenant regarding the validity of an option to purchase, the basic rent, the landlord's obligation to deliver the premises in good working order, and the tenant's right to rent abatement and set-off due to building code deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and his interpretation of the lease was reasonable.

The appellant, who operated a residential home, sought a declaration that his insurers had a duty to pay for his legal representation at a coroner's inquest following the death of a resident.

The appellant argued the inquest constituted a 'claim' under his insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while an inquest is an investigation, it does not involve a claim because it cannot establish civil responsibility or liability.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment holding the corporate appellant liable for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and imposing personal liability on the sole director and shareholder under s. 13(1).

The principal issue was whether the individual appellant had the requisite knowledge that the impugned disbursements amounted to a breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence clearly supported a finding that he reasonably ought to have known the disbursements were a breach of trust.

The court also declined to interfere with the trial judge’s discretionary decision on interest.

The appeal was dismissed with costs and the cross-appeal on interest was dismissed without costs.