Pitt

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and trafficking in cocaine following a jury trial.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the evidence of a police informant and hearsay statements made by an alleged co-conspirator.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the application of the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule, particularly given it was a two-person conspiracy and the Crown sought to rely on statements made after the conspiracy alleged in the indictment.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the jury instructions failed to properly isolate the findings required before hearsay evidence could be used against the appellant.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant franchisor appealed a trial judgment finding it breached a franchise agreement and the statutory duty of good faith under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The trial judge found the franchisor deliberately withheld information from the franchisee regarding a new head lease and denied the franchisee's conditional right of renewal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's interpretation of the contract, her decision to treat the individual franchisee and his corporation as a single entity, and the damages awarded for breach of contract, breach of good faith, and mental distress.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their action against the respondents, who had built the house in question.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge misstated the test under the new summary judgment rule, the critical error was finding no evidence to establish knowledge or causation.

The Court concluded there was sufficient evidence for a trial judge to find knowledge and causation, particularly because the respondents built the house.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for trial.