Weiler J.A.

The appellant, an investment advisor, appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for additional compensation under a letter agreement.

The trial judge found the agreement ambiguous regarding its application to Capital Markets transactions and relied on the parties' subsequent conduct to conclude it did not apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while subsequent conduct is not part of the factual matrix, it is admissible to resolve ambiguity.

The trial judge made no extricable error of law in finding ambiguity and properly weighed the appellant's subsequent conduct, which was overwhelmingly consistent with the respondent's interpretation.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim in a securities class action to add further particulars of wrongful conduct underlying their misrepresentation claims against the corporate respondent.

The motion judge denied leave for most of the amendments, finding they constituted discrete misrepresentation claims requiring fresh leave under s. 138.8(1) of the Securities Act, and were statute-barred under s. 138.14(1).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, with one limited exception permitting the appellants to plead a narrower omission allegation relating to previously pleaded facts.

The appellant appealed a decision making his daughter a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

He argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors and sought to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, including his intention to reunite with the child's mother and the mother's Jewish heritage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The court held that the fresh evidence did not warrant interfering with the trial judge's conclusion that Crown wardship without access remained in the child's best interests, as the appellant failed to rebut the presumption against access and the child required permanency.