Rosemary Fisher

The appellants, a lawyer and his professional corporation, appealed an order dismissing their motion to quash a Registrar's order for the assessment of 51 accounts rendered to the respondent client.

The appellants argued the accounts were for management services, the retainer was in dispute, and the requisition was untimely.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the accounts were for legal services, the retainer was not in dispute, and the overlapping nature of the interim accounts constituted special circumstances justifying the timing of the assessment.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment due to late disclosure, making blanket credibility findings, allowing an amendment to the interest rate claimed, finding an agreement on an 18 per cent interest rate, and awarding excessive costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no prejudice from the late disclosure, sufficient support for credibility findings, that the interest rate amendment was not a new claim, and sufficient basis for the interest rate agreement.

The application to file fresh evidence was also dismissed, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sold a property to the respondent, who covenanted not to resell it without first building a specific type of house.

The respondent breached the covenant by reselling the property for a profit without building the house, though the subsequent purchaser did build a compliant house.

The trial judge found the appellant suffered no compensable damages and declined to order disgorgement of the respondent's profit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to exercise his discretion to award disgorgement damages in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The appellant mortgage broker appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its action against the respondents for unpaid commissions.

The appellant argued the respondents should be liable for breach of contract, oppression, or as principals by piercing the corporate veil.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's refusal to award them costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to pierce the corporate veil or find oppression in what was an ordinary breach of contract by the corporate defendant.

The cross-appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's decision to deprive the successful respondents of costs due to their borderline dishonest conduct was justified.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to set aside a default judgment.

She argued that the plaintiff followed the wrong procedure in obtaining the default judgment based on a prior court order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the prior order did not impose an obligation on the plaintiff to move for judgment, nor did the Rules of Civil Procedure require it on the facts of the case.

The default judgment was properly granted.