Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court dismissed a post-judgment application for double costs under Rule 9-1, holding the plaintiff’s settlement offer was not one the defendants ought reasonably to have accepted.
Majority: The Trust Agreements and LPAs objectively incorporated the Loan Commitment by reference via the Use of Funds and Loan Documents clauses; guarantees by 1249 and Jim Neilas in the Loan Commitment were clear terms that beneficiaries could enforce where the trustee HRC failed to disclose and failed to enforce them; summary judgment on guarantees was appropriate. However, the motion judge erred in applying an 18% rate to compute losses and pre/post-judgment interest; the parties must recalculate losses and interest using the rates specified in each investor’s LPA.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed Ms. Kouptsova’s application to split and amend a counterclaim, finding the proposed pleading did not properly disclose abuse of process.
The limitation period began no later than May 2009 when the appellant knew the material facts of her loss; MFDA letters in 2011 did not supply new facts or delay accrual; therefore the action, commenced in January 2012, was statute-barred and summary judgment dismissing it was correct.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a negligent misrepresentation claim over a stock purchase, finding no duty, no misleading representation, no reasonable reliance, and a contractual time bar.
The court ordered disclosure of correspondence claimed as privileged, finding no underlying solicitor-client or litigation privilege. It denied a Rule 26(3) affidavit request.
Appeal from a securities-account negligence judgment. The court increased damages after finding the trial judge used an incorrect hypothetical-loss method.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia struck third party notices in a securities negligence action, holding that mitigation was the plaintiff’s responsibility and no reasonable cause of action was pleaded.
The court granted an application to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel after finding a former lawyer at the firm had received confidential information from the defendant in a related investment matter.
Explore more
