Samuel S. Marr

Following the dismissal of a class proceeding, the Attorney General for Canada sought costs against the plaintiffs' solicitors, arguing the plaintiffs had not given informed consent regarding costs exposure.

The motions judge ordered the solicitors to personally indemnify the defendants for costs, finding that uninformed consent equated to a lack of authority to commence the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the solicitors' appeal, holding that a failure to advise on costs does not invalidate the authority conferred by a client to commence proceedings, and that breach of warranty of authority could not put the defendants in a better position than if the impecunious plaintiffs had provided informed consent.

The appellant, a Bermuda-based corporate trustee, appealed a decision finding that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over it.

The Court of Appeal applied the Van Breda test and upheld the motion judge's finding that there was a real and substantial connection between the appellant and Ontario.

The evidence indicated the appellant transferred funds to Ontario over four years with knowledge they would be used in a gifting program, satisfying the presumption of a tort committed in Ontario under Rule 17.02(g).

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the appellant DeMarco failed to account for trust funds while acting in a fiduciary capacity.

The appellant conceded he acted in a fiduciary capacity but argued his failure to account was due to incompetence and negligence, not wrongdoing under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to adequately discharge his onus as a trustee to account for the trust funds was sufficient to trigger s. 178(1)(d).