R. Brendan Bissell

The appellant bank appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for losses arising from forged cheques drawn on its account by an employee.

The bank argued that a verification of account clause in the banking agreement provided a complete defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the clause did not clearly and unambiguously apply to forged cheques, which are wholly inoperative under s. 48(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act.

The respondent's cross-appeal for additional compensatory and punitive damages was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence and lack of basis for punitive damages.

The appellant taxpayer obtained a declaratory judgment that it was not required to pay retail sales tax on rented wooden pallets because they did not fall within the definition of 'returnable container' under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

In response, the legislature retroactively amended the Act to broaden the definition.

The Minister successfully moved for a determination that the retroactive amendment applied to the appellant's outstanding tax assessment appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that there is no exception to the general application of valid retroactive legislation for 'adjudicated rights' where the prior declaration merely interpreted the former law.

The Minister of Finance assessed IBM Canada for payroll tax under the Employer Health Tax Act on moneys paid to expatriate employees working abroad for foreign affiliates.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while the expatriates remained employees of IBM Canada, the payments did not constitute 'remuneration paid' because the foreign affiliates reimbursed IBM Canada.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, finding that the payments were made in the context of an ongoing employer/employee relationship and thus constituted 'remuneration paid' under the Act, regardless of the ultimate economic burden.

IBM Canada's cross-appeal challenging the existence of the employer/employee relationship was dismissed.

The Minister of Finance appealed a decision declaring that the respondent is exempt from paying retail sales tax on wooden pallets it rents to ship consumer goods.

The application judge found the pallets were exempt under s. 7(1)41 of the Retail Sales Tax Act because they were attached to or incorporated into tangible personal property for the purpose of sale, and were not returnable containers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the transfer of pallets to customers constituted a sale for consideration, as the rental costs were built into the product price, and the final product sold was a palletized package.

Canada Post Corporation brought an application for an injunction to restrain the appellant from violating its exclusive privilege to collect and deliver international mail under section 14(1) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

The appellant argued that the Act provided a complete code with specific penalties, precluding civil proceedings, and raised equitable defences of laches, delay, and estoppel.

The Court of Appeal held that Canada Post has the right to seek an injunction to enforce its statutory privilege, as the penalty provisions alone are insufficient to protect its mandate.

The Court further held that equitable defences cannot be raised against a Crown agent to prevent the operation of a public policy statute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice that refused to confirm an assessment officer's report reducing a solicitor's account and instead confirmed the account in full.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge was entitled to conclude the assessment officer ignored evidence regarding the time spent by the solicitor.

However, the motion judge erred in confirming a bonus charged by the solicitor, as the oral contract was based on an hourly rate and did not provide for a bonus.

The motion judge also erred in interfering with the assessment officer's finding concerning disbursements without providing reasons.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the solicitor's fee by the bonus amount and adjusting the disbursements.

The appellants, thoroughbred owners and trainers, appealed a Stewards' ruling denying their protest of a race outcome.

They alleged the winning horse carried less weight than required.

The Commission found that a typographical error in the condition book caused confusion, but the winning horse carried the correct weight according to the official Stakes book.

The Commission refused the appeals, noting that disqualifying the horse would constitute an undue hardship and would not be in the best interests of racing.