Margaret A. Hoy

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, a 61-year-old middle manager with 32 years of service, appealed a trial judgment regarding his wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had discounted his damages, finding he failed to mitigate by not seeking lower-level employment such as a crossing guard.

The Court of Appeal held this was a reversible error, as the appellant's obligation was to seek comparable employment.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in the notice period, increasing it to the high end of the range at 24 months, plus benefits.

Claims for further augmentation due to bad faith were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding a shareholder's agreement, oppression, and ordering an advance payment of $75,000 along with substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions.

The refusal to acknowledge the respondent as a shareholder constituted oppression under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act.

The trial judge's costs award was also upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing he did not have care and control of the vehicle.

The trial judge applied the law from R. v. Toews and found a real risk that the extremely impaired appellant could have woken up and driven the vehicle.

The summary conviction appeal court judge upheld this finding as not unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the use of property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the continuous use of the property was permissive, noting the trial judge was entitled to consider the nature of the use, the understanding of participants, and the effect on the property.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding two mortgage actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended critical evidence from a handwriting expert, failed to adequately assist the unrepresented appellants to ensure trial fairness, and arbitrarily curtailed cross-examination.

Concluding that the appellants did not receive a fair trial, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment in part and ordered a new trial for the mortgage actions.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision setting aside a conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of explanation for near relatives or the finding that the appellant was unable to pay his debts at the relevant time.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their wrongful dismissal claim against the individual respondent, a corporate officer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the statement of claim failed to plead material facts giving rise to an independent claim against the officer in his individual capacity.

The allegations of inducing breach of contract and tortious misrepresentation were deemed insufficient to establish personal liability.