Robert B. Cohen

The appellants appealed an order refusing to grant a stay of Ontario proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The underlying action involved a fire at the respondent's plant in Alberta, and the respondent had commenced identical actions in both Alberta and Ontario.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge properly applied the factors from Amchem and Muscutt, concluding that Alberta was not a more convenient forum, particularly given a potential limitation period issue in Alberta.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, an adult daughter, was made a joint account holder by her father with a right of survivorship.

Following the father's death, her siblings commenced litigation because she did not include the joint accounts in the distribution of the estate.

The trial judge applied a presumption of resulting trust and found no evidence that the father intended to gift the accounts to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the presumption of resulting trust applied to gratuitous transfers to adult children and that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment, counsel for the appellant Ackerman noted a conflict between paragraphs 56 and 58 regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal agreed and issued an addendum amending paragraph 58 to remove the reference to costs assessed on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the costs of the motion at $3,000.

The appellants, an estate trustee and her former counsel, appealed a trial judgment finding that joint bank accounts held by the trustee and her late father belonged to the estate, and ordering the counsel to repay estate funds taken for legal fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the trustee's appeal, holding that while the trial judge erred in law by rejecting the presumption of advancement for adult children, the evidence clearly established the father did not intend to gift the joint accounts.

The counsel's appeal was allowed, setting aside the substantial indemnity costs order against him and directing an assessment of his legal accounts.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that he was not deceived and understood the terms of an agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had abided by the agreement's terms for fourteen years before asserting his current position, and found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings.

The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant moving company to move and store their household goods.

The defendant assured the plaintiffs that their goods would be secure in a locked trailer on the defendant's lot.

However, the trailer was left unattended on a public street overnight and was stolen.

The defendant admitted liability but sought to rely on a limitation of liability clause limiting damages to $0.60 per pound.

The trial judge found the clause unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that enforcing the limitation clause would be unconscionable given the false assurances of security.

The appeal was allowed only to set aside damages awarded to the plaintiffs' corporations.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank appealed a trial judgment declaring that all debts under a line of credit extended to the respondents were discharged and ordering the discharge of a collateral mortgage.

The respondents had obtained a line of credit secured by a second mortgage on their home, along with life insurance that would repay the loan if either died.

The bank improperly calculated monthly interest payments, leading to an apparent default, and subsequently demanded repayment.

This demand automatically terminated the life insurance policy.

When one of the respondents later died, the insurance company denied coverage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the bank's appeal, finding that the bank's breach of the loan agreement by taking more than the minimum monthly payment led directly to the default and the subsequent demand, which in turn caused the termination of the life insurance policy.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding Option A of a contract unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that Option A lacked a mechanism to ensure the consummation of a contemplated maintenance agreement, rendering the option to purchase television sets for $1 unenforceable.

The court varied the damages award to include a fair rental charge of $4,696.50 per month for the period the appellant retained the television sets under a stay pending appeal.

The appellant sought a stay of a Superior Court judgment pending appeal.

The chambers judge held that the moving party met the three-part test applicable to a stay pending appeal and granted the stay subject to conditions requiring an expedited transcript and expedited hearing of the appeal.

Costs of the application were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.