The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against a lawyer for conversion, breach of trust, and money had and received arising from a mortgage transaction.
The trial judge found the lawyer acted for the mortgagee, not the appellant, and had authorization from the appellant's solicitor to disburse the funds.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant could not raise a new argument regarding the sufficiency of authorization on appeal, and that the trial judge made no errors in principle regarding evidentiary rulings on bankruptcy documentation or the costs award.
