M. Scott Martin

The appellants, an author and her company, appealed a decision granting the respondent television production company a declaration that an option agreement for the television rights to her books remained in effect.

The respondent had mistakenly paid a lower extension fee under the wrong contractual clause.

The application judge interpreted the contract to allow for cumulative extensions and granted the respondent relief from forfeiture for the mistaken payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's reasons were adequate, his interpretation of the contract was correct, and he made no error in exercising his equitable discretion to grant relief from forfeiture.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and oxycodone following a vehicle stop and search.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion of evidence based on alleged breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the accused's section 10(b) rights were breached (failure to inform of right to counsel immediately upon investigative detention), the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court determined that the investigative detention was justified on reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in drug trafficking, the search was lawful as a protective pat-down search based on safety concerns, and the brief delay in providing rights to counsel was reasonable given officer safety considerations.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend a statement of claim in a solicitor’s negligence action by adding numerous allegations and increasing the damages claimed by more than $400,000.

The court considered whether the proposed amendments complied with the rules governing pleadings, including whether they improperly pleaded evidence, withdrew admissions, introduced new causes of action outside the limitation period, or caused non‑compensable prejudice.

Most proposed amendments were found to be improper, scandalous, or statute‑barred, including allegations relating to unrelated litigation matters and claims for damages long after the relevant events.

The court permitted only a single unopposed amendment while denying the remainder of the motion.

The self-represented appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his solicitor negligence action against the respondent.

The appellant claimed the respondent's negligence caused properties to be sold at depressed prices under power of sale, preventing him from recovering his investment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew of the power of sale proceedings but took no steps to protect his unsecured investment.

The court confirmed there was no legal basis for the respondent to register a lien on the properties, and the appeal was dismissed.