Lorne S. Silver

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding he defrauded the respondent in the sale of a business and awarding damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and the valuation of the business.

The Court also upheld the award of $402,000 in consequential damages for wasted expenses incurred by the respondent in attempting to salvage the unviable business.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to a minor clarification in the formal order to prevent double counting of damages.

The appellant, an adult daughter, was made a joint account holder by her father with a right of survivorship.

Following the father's death, her siblings commenced litigation because she did not include the joint accounts in the distribution of the estate.

The trial judge applied a presumption of resulting trust and found no evidence that the father intended to gift the accounts to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the presumption of resulting trust applied to gratuitous transfers to adult children and that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application to require Goldcorp Inc. to obtain shareholder approval for a transaction with Glamis Gold Ltd. The appellant argued the transaction was an 'arrangement' under s. 182 of the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that s. 182 is facilitative, not mandatory, and that Goldcorp did not 'propose' an arrangement.

The court found the transaction was an issuance of shares and a vertical short-form amalgamation exempt from shareholder approval.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to fully vacate notices of garnishment issued against their bank accounts.

The appellants argued the garnishments conflicted with prior freezing orders that permitted them to use funds for legal fees.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge properly exercised his broad discretion under Rule 60.08(16) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to uphold the garnishments while allowing limited access to funds for legal fees, preventing the frustration of the respondent's judgment.

The plaintiff, former General Manager of the Ottawa Senators, sued the team's executives for misrepresentation regarding his compensation.

The appellant moved to stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration by the NHL Commissioner, relying on the NHL Constitution and the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff was not a party to an arbitration agreement, as the employment contract did not expressly require him to submit disputes to arbitration or bind him to the NHL Constitution's arbitration provisions.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge regarding an oppression motion and a bank's application.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to address the issues and arguments he was required to decide, including the factors regarding the oppression remedy and whether the bank had valid security in priority to a judgment creditor claim.

The order was set aside and the issues were returned to the Commercial List for determination.

The moving party, who was a party to the underlying proceedings, brought a motion to be added as a party to an appeal concerning an interim order affecting counsel.

The court found that the moving party should have been a party to the appeal and served with the relevant documents.

The court ordered that the moving party be added as a party, and that the overlapping appeals be expedited and heard together.

The court issued an endorsement to settle the terms of its orders following an appeal.

The court determined that interest on costs should run from September 29, 2004, the date the costs order was made, rather than the date of the main judgment.

The court declined to alter the trial judge's order regarding carriage of the reference, noting it was not argued and should not be modified absent agreement or if affected by the appeal reasons.

The court also declined to cross-reference the orders in the two separate actions, noting the agreement that there can be no double recovery.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision requiring him to answer questions and produce documents related to a tracing remedy ordered in a prior judgment.

The applicant argued he should not have to disclose assets without the plaintiff first establishing an evidentiary link.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the trial judge's order clearly required the production and the issue was res judicata as the underlying judgment had been upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The respondents in an appeal brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing their motion for interim costs.

They sought $5,000,000 to fund their legal expenses, arguing they could not afford to respond to the appeal and that the appellants were unfairly using corporate assets to fund their own litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the request for interim costs was tantamount to a motion to lift the automatic stay of the money judgment, which had already been denied.

The court held that while section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act provides broad jurisdiction to make interim orders to prevent prejudice pending appeal, the respondents failed to demonstrate that the appellants' use of corporate assets prevented them from effectively responding to the appeal or dissipated assets so as to undermine the effectiveness of any order on appeal.

In a complex family business dispute, the respondents moved to lift the automatic stay of substantial money judgments pending appeal, or alternatively for interim costs or security for costs.

The appellants brought a cross-motion to stay certain mandatory tracing orders pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both motions.

The court found the appeals were not devoid of merit and the respondents failed to establish sufficient hardship or risk of asset dissipation to justify lifting the stay.

The court also found the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm to justify staying the mandatory tracing orders.