A. Harvison Young

The appellant appealed his second-degree murder conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and in giving a restrictive corrective instruction.

The trial judge had instructed the jury that they could not find a key Crown witness fabricated her evidence about the appellant's confession because defence counsel did not explicitly put that suggestion to her in cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no breach of the rule occurred as the tenor of the cross-examination made the defence's position clear.

Furthermore, the corrective instruction erroneously usurped the jury's function by prohibiting them from considering whether the witness fabricated the confession.

The curative proviso was not applied, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant, a non-profit organization, sought public interest standing to bring nine applications for judicial review challenging decisions made by the Ontario Integrity Commissioner under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

The Divisional Court quashed the applications, finding the appellant lacked standing.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue as they merely challenged individual exercises of discretion rather than statutory interpretation.

The Court also agreed that the applications were not a reasonable and effective means to bring the issues before the courts, as they would conflict with the statutory scheme and its strict confidentiality provisions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and his designation and sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the defence theory and erred in finding his conduct intractable for the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was adequate and there was ample evidence of a repetitive pattern of intimate partner violence to support the dangerous offender designation and the resulting seven-year sentence with a ten-year long term supervision order.

The moving party sought a panel review of a single judge's order that dismissed her request for an extension of time to review a previous order denying leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the single judge's decision that the moving party failed to provide evidence of intention to review, lacked an explanation for the delay, and that the underlying proposed appeal lacked merit.

The appellant abandoned his appeal after the respondents filed responding materials and brought a motion for security for costs.

The respondents sought costs of the appeal and the moot security motion.

The appellant requested that no costs be ordered, citing personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise any discretion to order no costs, noting the appellant had put the respondents to expense and had substantial unpaid costs orders.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the Aziz respondents and $15,000 to the Mallot Creek respondents.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside an ex parte order that had extended the time for service of his statement of claim.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to make full and fair disclosure regarding an ongoing Mutual Fund Dealers Association investigation.

The motion judge also dismissed the appellant's cross-motion to extend time retroactively due to prejudice to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and deferring to the discretionary balancing of prejudice.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action without prejudice to her ability to begin a new action that explains her case.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's endorsement, noting that he provided a clear roadmap for the appellant to follow and granted leave to bring a more comprehensible claim.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $2,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST.