Mark Irwin Wainberg

The appellants appealed an order striking their plea of equitable fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that it was not 'plain and obvious' that a claim in equitable fraud could not succeed, citing relevant jurisprudence.

The order striking the plea was set aside, the defendants' motion was dismissed, and the appellants were permitted to amend their statement of claim.

The respondent leased a BMW and installed extensive aftermarket modifications.

The airbags deployed without a collision, and BMW refused warranty coverage, citing the modifications.

The trial judge found BMW liable for breach of warranty, concluding the exclusion clause was ambiguous.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action.

The majority held that the trial judge erred in failing to require the respondent to prove the defect was not caused by the modifications, and found the exclusion clause unambiguously excluded coverage for modifications that may result in damage to original components.

The appellant tenant appealed a motions judge's decision which found that his lease did not include the basement premises of the property.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge ignored relevant evidence, including a note on a schedule attached to the lease and an affidavit from the original landlord confirming the basement's inclusion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the motions judge's decision, and dismissed the respondent landlord's application, concluding that the basement was part of the demised premises.

The plaintiff, an experienced investor, invested in special warrants and special shares of two private companies on the advice of his broker.

The broker failed to warn him of the risks associated with these investments, including the risk that the planned initial public offerings might never take place.

The plaintiff lost his entire investment and sued the broker and her firm for negligence.

The trial judge found the defendants liable but reduced the damages by 50% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence in signing subscription agreements without reading them.

The defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the broker breached her duty to warn and that her misrepresentation precluded the defendants from relying on the subscription agreements to raise an estoppel.