Li He

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision requiring him to pay half of a gross negligence HST penalty pursuant to a supplementary investment agreement with the respondent.

The appellant raised new arguments on appeal that the gross negligence HST penalty did not form part of the HST assessment and arose solely from the respondent's alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the stringent test for entertaining new issues on appeal, as the evidentiary record was insufficient and no miscarriage of justice would result from refusing to entertain the new arguments.

This decision addresses three motions: the defendants' motion to remove the plaintiff's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, the defendants' motion to lift a Mareva injunction against two defendants, and the defendants' motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, finding no direct adverse legal interests and that the "bright line rule" did not apply.

The motion to lift the Mareva injunction was also dismissed, as the court found evidence of co-mingled funds implicating the defendants.

However, the motion to discharge the CPL was granted, as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an interest in the property, which was acquired prior to the investment relationship.

The appellant appealed a judgment that found his refusal to transfer 33.15 shares in Futecan Canada Inc. to the respondent was oppressive and ordered the share transfer.

The central issue was the agreed-upon number of shares to be transferred.

The Court of Appeal found ample non-hearsay documentary evidence supported the application judge's finding that 33.15 shares were to be transferred, which would give the respondent a controlling interest and made commercial sense.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original judgment.

This urgent motion was scheduled to be heard but the parties reached a settlement, leading to an adjournment pending implementation.

The plaintiffs also informally requested an order sealing the court file due to personal information, but the court declined to grant it without a formal motion and factum, advising the parties to bring a proper motion if they wished to pursue it.

The applicant brought an ex parte motion seeking to appoint her husband as her litigation guardian and for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation against a preconstruction condominium property.

The court granted the appointment of the litigation guardian as the applicant was incapable following a serious traffic accident.

However, the court dismissed the motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

Although there was a triable issue regarding the termination of the agreement of purchase and sale, the court applied the Dhunna factors and found that the equities favoured the respondent, noting the property was not unique, damages would be an adequate remedy, and there was another willing purchaser whose transaction was scheduled to close imminently.