The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision requiring him to pay half of a gross negligence HST penalty pursuant to a supplementary investment agreement with the respondent.
The appellant raised new arguments on appeal that the gross negligence HST penalty did not form part of the HST assessment and arose solely from the respondent's alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the stringent test for entertaining new issues on appeal, as the evidentiary record was insufficient and no miscarriage of justice would result from refusing to entertain the new arguments.
