Clive Elkin

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion based on the record and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $12,500.

The appellant Province appealed a trial judgment finding it 70% liable for a motor vehicle accident that rendered the respondent a quadriplegic.

The trial judge found the Province's subcontractor failed to sand the icy highway.

The Province appealed on grounds of liability, apportionment, excessive judicial intervention destroying impartiality, and the award of a $50,000 costs premium.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability, apportionment, and judicial intervention, finding the trial judge's interventions did not amount to reversible error.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the costs premium, finding the circumstances were not so exceptional as to warrant a premium.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding an enforceable contract for the sale and delivery of shares to the respondent.

The trial judge found the contract was partly written and partly oral, with all essential terms agreed upon, including the provision of $1 million in shares priced at half market value as of the respondent's start date.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting there was a clear meeting of the minds and no palpable error.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the assessment of damages was also dismissed, as the trial judge was justified in fixing the assessment as of the notice of termination date.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed with no costs.

The parties agreed on the disposition of costs following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay costs to the respondent, Commercial Union Life Assurance Company of Canada.

Specifically, Steven Michael Overgaard was ordered to pay $25,000, JIIG Holdings Inc. was ordered to pay $20,000 for abandoned grounds of appeal, and MHI Brokers Ltd., JIIG Holdings Inc., and Steven Michael Overgaard were ordered to jointly and severally pay $5,000 for the cross-appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that their company held insurance premiums in trust for the respondent insurer and that the individual appellant, as the directing mind of the company, was personally liable for knowing assistance in a breach of trust for withholding those premiums.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a statutory trust existed under s. 402(1) of the Insurance Act, which applies to both licensed and unlicensed agents, and that an express trust existed at common law.

The Court also affirmed that the individual appellant was personally liable because he directed the company to take a knowingly wrongful risk to the prejudice of the insurer.

The respondent judgment creditor brought a motion to the Court of Appeal for an order allowing the sheriff to seize all assets of a corporation found to be the appellant's alter ego, after the appellant filed a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal declined to grant the relief, finding that while it might have jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure, matters regarding the enforcement of judgments and bankruptcy stays are properly dealt with by the Superior Court or Bankruptcy Court.

The motion was dismissed, with an interim order preserving the status quo until the matter is brought in the appropriate forum.

Appeal from a solicitor's negligence judgment arising out of two insurance litigation files handled for an insurer.

In the Little matter, the court upheld the finding that counsel negligently failed to alert the insurer to a coverage issue revealed on discovery and that, but for that failure, the insurer would likely have denied errors and omissions coverage based on material non-disclosure in the insurance application.

In the Uniroyal matter, the court held that the trial judge erred in interpreting pollution exclusion wording as clearly excluding groundwater contamination under a 1987 umbrella policy, with the result that the insurer still had a duty to defend and suffered no compensable loss from counsel's conduct.

The appeal was therefore dismissed in part and allowed in part, with a later addendum awarding the appellant trial costs of the Uniroyal matter.