Robert Isles

The applicant sought an order compelling the trial judge to produce his personal working copy of the Crown's section 11(b) response materials, alleging they might differ from the copies provided to the defence and could establish bias.

Alternatively, the applicant sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the request was speculative and amounted to a fishing expedition without any air of reality.

The court suggested the applicant obtain the materials directly from the Crown to complete the appeal record.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that they had no interest in certain mining claims under an Option Agreement.

The appellants argued the agreement was an outright sale, while the respondent argued it was an option agreement requiring the appellants to fund development to earn their interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation, finding that the agreement was an option and that legal title reverted to the respondent because the appellants failed to fulfill their funding obligations.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent regarding a loan.

The respondent had provided evidence of the loan, an amortization schedule, and a record of payments.

The appellants admitted to the loan but claimed they made additional payments by cash and cheque, which were unsupported by receipts.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge carefully analyzed the evidence and correctly concluded that the appellants failed to put their best foot forward.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.