Symon Zucker

Following a successful summary judgment motion for payment of shipped merchandise, the parties disputed the appropriate interest rate on the judgment amount.

The plaintiff relied on a 2% per month interest notation printed on its invoices.

The court held that the unilateral notation on invoices did not establish an agreement to that interest rate, particularly given the parties’ prior course of dealing where interest had not been charged.

In the absence of an agreement, the presumptive statutory interest rate under the Courts of Justice Act applied.

The court ordered that both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest be calculated at the statutory rate as simple interest.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim regarding a parking space, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57, including the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party and the proportionality of the value of the parking space in dispute.

The defendants were awarded costs fixed at $28,000, inclusive of interest and taxes.

The appellant appealed an order finding that its solicitor, retained to discharge a mortgage, fraudulently diverted the respondent's repayment funds to himself.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's findings were well supported by the record.

The respondent sold an automobile to Crown Leasing Ltd., who took possession and presented a cheque that was subsequently dishonoured.

The application judge held that title did not pass.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in law, holding that the usual inference that title passes with possession should have been drawn.

However, because the application judge did not decide whether the appellants were innocent third-party purchasers for value, and the evidence was conflicting, the Court set aside the judgment and directed a trial of that issue.

The appellant oral surgeon appealed a trial judgment enforcing a handwritten non-competition clause that barred him from practising within five miles of the respondent's office for three years after leaving an associate position.

The Court of Appeal held that although the respondent had some proprietary interest in regular referring dentists, this was not an exceptional employment case justifying a broad non-competition covenant.

Applying the governing framework for restrictive covenants in employment contracts, the court emphasized that non-competition clauses will generally not be enforced where a non-solicitation clause would adequately protect the employer's legitimate interests.

The appellant's role was that of a junior associate, he did not personify the practice, and no confidential information or trade secrets justified the broader restraint.

The appeal was allowed, the action dismissed, and costs awarded to the appellant.

The appellant operated a telephone sales 'boiler room' in Toronto, fraudulently inducing United States residents to purchase worthless shares in Central American mining companies.

The victims sent their money to Central America, and the appellant brought a portion of the proceeds back to Canada.

The appellant challenged his committal for trial on the basis that the essential element of the fraud (the deprivation) occurred outside Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, establishing that Canadian courts have jurisdiction over transnational offences if there is a 'real and substantial link' between the offence and Canada, which was satisfied by the scheme being devised and operated in Toronto.