Law360 Canada ( October 7, 2026, 9:45 AM EDT) -- Appeal by Millstone Homes Inc. (Millstone) from judgment finding an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for a new home valid, awarding Kevin damages and increasing the prejudgment interest rate. The parties agreed Kevin could purchase the property at cost and would share any profit equally. While Millstone’s owner was away, Kevin received an APS bearing the owner’s stamped signature but omitting the profit-sharing term. Millstone alleged that its general manager, Kevin’s father, fraudulently caused the APS to be created and executed without authority. The trial judge applied the indoor management rule under s. 19 of the Business Corporations Act and held that Kevin could assume Millstone’s internal procedures had been followed. She treated the profit-sharing term as a collateral agreement, excluded evidence concerning the general manager’s wrongdoing and an office administrator’s affidavit admitted under a consent order, and drew an adverse inference because the administrator had not testified. Millstone submitted that the trial judge failed to analyze the profit-sharing term and the statutory exception for a person who knew or ought to have known of an internal irregularity, unfairly excluded relevant evidence, and improperly increased prejudgment interest based on lease income, its refusal of a settlement offer and fluctuations in statutory rates....