Myron W. Shulgan

The Minister of Finance appealed a trial decision finding that a partnership providing management services to two corporations was not an employee for the purposes of the Employer Health Tax Act.

On appeal, the Minister argued that the individual partners, rather than the partnership, were employees.

The Court of Appeal applied the Wiebe Door factors and concluded that the partners were not employees at common law, nor were they remunerated as officers or directors.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed the trial judge's dismissal of its fraudulent conveyance action against the debtor's wife on a non-suit motion.

The debtor cross-appealed the trial judge's decision granting judgment on his personal guarantee without allowing him to make closing arguments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

While the trial judge erred in denying the debtor the opportunity to make closing arguments, this did not amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Furthermore, although the trial judge applied the wrong test on the non-suit motion by weighing competing inferences rather than assessing if a prima facie case was made, the trial judge correctly concluded on the merits that the plaintiff failed to establish fraudulent intent.

The appellant and respondents engaged in negotiations and signed a letter of intent regarding a joint venture to develop a retail outlet mall and other properties.

When the respondents terminated the relationship, the appellant sued for breach of contract and, alternatively, quantum meruit for services rendered.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no binding joint venture agreement existed and rejecting the quantum meruit claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that no binding contract was formed, as essential terms were missing and the parties' conduct indicated further negotiations were required.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantum meruit claim, finding the trial judge erred in law by requiring a contractual relationship for restitutionary relief.

A new trial was ordered to determine the value of the services provided by the appellant.

The appellant municipality enacted a by-law requiring employees of adult entertainment parlours who work partially or fully nude to pay a special 'dancer' licence fee.

The respondents successfully challenged the by-law at first instance.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the municipality lacked the statutory authority under the Municipal Act, 2001 to create a separate class of employees based solely on their state of dress while performing services.

The court found the by-law discriminatory and ultra vires.

Furthermore, the court upheld the finding that the licence fee was improperly calculated as it included general policing costs not directly related to the administration and enforcement of the by-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The developer sought a declaration that it did not require a permit from the Minister of Transportation under s. 38(2)(f) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act to proceed with the residential phase of a mixed-use development located near a controlled-access highway.

The application judge granted the declaration.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the order, finding that the residential phase could not be considered in isolation from the commercial phase, which had already been subjected to permit conditions requiring permits for all future phases.

The Court declared that a permit was required.

The respondent was successful on an appeal and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,987 plus disbursements and taxes.

The appellants argued the claimed rates and hours were excessive, particularly the attendance of two counsel and the time spent reviewing transcripts.

The court agreed that the hours claimed were excessive, the attendance of two counsel was unnecessary, and certain disbursements were not compensable.

Costs were fixed at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant received a lump sum settlement of $105,000 from her disability insurer after her benefits were terminated and she sued.

The Minister of National Revenue reassessed her to include the full amount as income.

The Tax Court set aside the reassessment, but the Federal Court of Appeal held that the portion attributable to arrears was taxable.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that under the surrogatum principle, the portion of the settlement intended to replace past disability benefits was payable on a periodic basis pursuant to a disability insurance plan and was therefore taxable under s. 6(1)(f) of the Income Tax Act.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that Amicone Design Build Inc. assumed the obligations of Island Cove Development Ltd. and 1078385 Ontario Limited, making it liable for the return of a $66,000 deposit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conclusion was supported by evidence, including Amicone taking over the project, communicating with the respondents, and receiving the proceeds of sale.

The appellants called no evidence to rebut these reasonable inferences.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached fiduciary duties owed to the respondents regarding the financing of a joint venture to construct an apartment building.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellants violated their duty of full disclosure, were in a serious conflict of interest, and made secret profits on a mortgage they set up.

The court also upheld the trial judge's calculation of the amounts owing between the parties.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding two 1973 agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the agreements demonstrated a sufficiently clear intention to comply with the Planning Act, falling within the exception in s. 29(2).

The Court also held that s. 4 of the Limitations Act did not apply to the transaction.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $10,000.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claim for partition and sale and granting other relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the partition and sale claim, finding that the joint venture agreement provided a proper basis for denying this relief.

However, the Court found material facts in dispute regarding mortgage disclosure and directed those issues to proceed to trial.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants brought a motion for an order directing the trial of certain issues allegedly outstanding from a 1993 judgment based on Minutes of Settlement.

The motions judge directed a trial on only some issues and stayed a subsequent 1999 action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to support the requested order.