Ronald Gordon Chapman

The appellant, an aircraft maintenance company, negligently lost parts of an aircraft left in its possession for repair and storage.

The appellant claimed a lien for its unpaid repair and storage charges.

The respondent bank, which held a security interest in the aircraft, took possession and received insurance proceeds for the lost parts.

The appellant argued that the bank could not set off the cost of the lost parts against the lien claim because of an alleged agreement that the aircraft owner would insure against loss, and to prevent double recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurance was not obtained to protect the appellant from its own negligence, and applying the principle that a wrongdoer cannot benefit from an innocent party's insurance.

The bank was entitled to equitable set-off.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring payment on a promissory note.

They argued the motion judge erred by not ordering a stay of execution or directing the monies be paid into court pending the resolution of a related oppression remedy action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to disturb the motion judge's determination that the promissory note was sufficiently disconnected from the oppression action, and noting no prejudice was alleged.

The respondent obtained summary judgment against the appellant for unpaid goods.

The appellant sought a stay of the judgment pending the determination of its counterclaim for damages related to a previous delivery of allegedly defective goods.

The motion judge refused the stay, finding the claims were not closely connected.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge misapprehended the evidence, as the claims were closely connected through ongoing negotiations.

A stay was granted on the condition that the appellant pay the judgment amount, interest, and estimated trial costs into court.

The appellants appealed a decision finding oppression and ordering the valuation of the deceased's shares at fair market value without a minority discount.

The appellants argued that a draft shareholders' agreement, which valued shares at net book value, should dictate the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that there was no binding shareholders' agreement because one shareholder had not signed it, as required by s. 108 of the Business Corporations Act.

The Court also agreed that the evidence did not support the appellants' claim regarding reasonable expectations, as the parties had not abided by the draft agreement and were negotiating a new one based on fair market value prior to the deceased's death.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claims for breach of an agency agreement, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The trial judge found no agency agreement existed, no reasonable reliance on interest rate statements, and no duty to advise of commission changes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence supported the trial judge's findings and rejecting the argument that lack of reliance was not pleaded.

The appellant town appealed a trial judge's decision declaring that a parcel of land was conveyed to it by mistake and was held in a resulting trust for the respondent developer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the conveyance was an inadvertent error by the respondent's real estate solicitor.

The Court also agreed that res judicata and limitation periods did not bar the claim, and declined to interfere with the trial judge's discretion to grant equitable relief despite the respondent's failure to convey other lands under a subdivision agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory rather than final, and that the result of the motion would have inevitably been the same whether brought in Kingston or Toronto.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision which found that minutes of settlement did not contain all essential terms to constitute an enforceable agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the essential terms of the easement and licensing agreements were set out in the minutes.

The dispute over a $2,000 cost for committee of adjustment approval did not justify resiling from the agreement, as the respondents were obligated to assume this cost, or alternatively, it was a minor matter that could be resolved by a judge.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was granted in accordance with the minutes of settlement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to reconcile the lack of documentary evidence supporting the respondent's claim for sweat equity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the case turned on credibility and the trial judge was entitled to accept the respondent's evidence.

Applying the standard of review from Housen, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment.

The moving parties sought to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal refusing a stay of an order enforcing Letters Rogatory from a California court.

They argued the original Letters Rogatory were null and void, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried.

The court held that under s. 60 of the Evidence Act, jurisdiction is established when it is made to appear that a foreign court has duly authorized a request, and the moving parties failed to challenge the validity of the request at the original hearing.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in findings of fact and that the respondent's delay in initiating proceedings should disentitle them from advancing their claims.

The Court of Appeal found no global error in the findings of fact and agreed with the trial judge regarding the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price for an income property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not accepted the respondent's request for an abatement as a repudiation of the contract.

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the property was unique, the abatement was properly valued at $281,000, and the error in expenses, which reduced the purchase price by 10%, constituted a breach of a condition.

The appellants appealed a decision enforcing letters rogatory issued by a California court against non-parties in Ontario.

The motion judge had found the evidence of the Ontario residents to be relevant and narrowed the scope of documentary production.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.