Louis Anthony Frapporti

The appellant sought costs following a trial and appeal.

Based on a settlement offer dated March 13, 2002, the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs at trial at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, noting that the requested fees exceeded trial counsel's actual billable rate.

The appellant accepted a commissioned sales position with the respondent and resigned from his previous job.

After starting work, he was required to sign a 'Solicitor's Agreement' that severely restricted his entitlement to commissions.

The appellant later resigned and sued for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the agreement enforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Solicitor's Agreement was an amendment to the employment contract and was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as the employer did not provide anything of value, such as increased job security, in exchange for the employee signing it.

The appellant was awarded his unpaid commissions.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached a fiduciary duty to a joint venture corporation.

The appellants managed a real estate development for the joint venture and allowed the property to go into power of sale, subsequently purchasing it for themselves.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that a fiduciary relationship existed and that the appellants breached their duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the imposition of a constructive trust was affirmed.

The appellant landlord originally applied to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal under the Tenant Protection Act, claiming the respondent tenant breached the Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The appellant did not appeal but instead applied to the Superior Court for a declaration that the unit was a commercial tenancy.

The motions judge dismissed the application based on issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal implicitly decided the unit was residential and the appellant could not resile from its initial position relying on the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim arising from the loss of part of a shipment of watches seized by Bahamian authorities after customs documentation was incorrectly completed.

The court held that the respondent carrier had contracted not only to provide customs clearance services but also to deliver the shipment with customs clearance to the consignee's business address.

The consignee's conduct in attempting to obtain customs clearance did not break the chain of responsibility because, for that purpose, it acted as the carrier's agent.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was directed for the full claim together with pre-judgment interest and costs.