A. Karakatsanis

The applicant brought a motion to reopen his appeals, which had been administratively dismissed as abandoned.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant may not have fully appreciated the implications of a court-ordered Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) assessment when he entered his guilty plea, nor that he was abandoning his right to appeal the NCR disposition when he filed his notice of abandonment.

The court ordered the appeal regarding the NCR matters to be reopened in the interests of justice.

However, the application to reopen the appeal from the summary conviction offences was dismissed for lack of merit and mootness.

The appellant appealed an extradition judge's order committing him for surrender to Hungary to face charges of fraud over $5,000.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence in the Records of the Case identifying him as the perpetrator who created false car leasing documents and entered into fraudulent loan agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the summaries of evidence, including witness testimony and documentary evidence, when read as a whole, provided sufficient evidence to support the inference that the appellant was the perpetrator of the frauds.

The appellant tenant was evicted and his belongings disposed of while he was out of the country, due to a rent arrears dispute arising from a prematurely deposited post-dated cheque.

After the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) upheld the eviction and found no illegal conduct by the landlords, the appellant sued the landlords in Superior Court for damages.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as an abuse of process because the issues had already been decided by the LTB.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the LTB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and the proper route was to appeal the LTB decision to the Divisional Court.

The appellant, a secured creditor, appealed an order approving a receiver's proposed purchase agreement and technology license agreement for the assets of the respondent companies.

The appellant argued that the proposal was identical to one previously rejected by another judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the new proposal differed significantly and that the motion judge appropriately applied the Soundair principles in approving the transaction, given the changed circumstances and the need to sell the subsidiary as a going concern.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, firearms offences, and drug trafficking, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the complainant's videotaped statement under the KGB framework and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his lawyer agreed to an Agreed Statement of Facts that undermined his testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the videotaped statement was properly admitted and there was no miscarriage of justice regarding counsel's conduct.

The sentence appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the probation order, as a subsequent sentence made the total a penitentiary sentence.

The appellant brought a motion on the day of the appeal, which the Court of Appeal dismissed for being brought too late.

The Court found no error in the two orders granted by the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 to each respondent.

The appellant brought an action in the Ontario Superior Court attacking a decision of the tax court.

The appellant had already exhausted his right to appeal the tax court decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant is not entitled to collaterally attack the tax court decision in the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order for ongoing child support, arrears, and costs.

The respondent conceded that the trial judge made a calculation error under the Child Support Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal amended the ongoing support to $277 per month.

The Court also found that the trial judge erred in making the support award retroactive to a date prior to the application without considering all the factors from D.B.S. v S.R.G. The retroactive award prior to August 5, 2008, was set aside, trial costs were reduced, and the appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with probation, as well as his two-year sentence.

He argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and the trial judge erred in assessing credibility and identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable or overriding error in accepting the complainant's evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the two-year sentence was fit and did not violate the jump principle.

The appellant appealed a quantum meruit damages award of $100,000 for architectural services, arguing the trial judge should have used a percentage of construction costs method rather than an honorarium method.

The respondents cross-appealed the award of prejudgment interest and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion given the lack of reliable evidence regarding the work done and expenses incurred.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that its commercial general liability insurance policy did not cover its distribution centres.

The application judge found the policy ambiguous and relied on uncontroverted extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intentions regarding coverage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of ambiguity and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that an offer to lease commercial premises did not constitute a binding lease agreement.

The trial judge admitted parol evidence showing the parties intended the offer to be preparatory to a formal lease and that the respondent never gained possession of the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the parol evidence was admissible to determine the factual matrix and that the doctrine of part performance did not apply because possession was never granted.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing an equipment financing lease, arguing the lease was illegal and void for contravening the Electrical Safety Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the lease contained non-recourse provisions and that not every statutory breach invalidates a commercial contract for illegality.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the lease's enforceability.

The appellants appealed an order upholding a master's decision concerning documentary production, redactions, and costs.

The appellants argued the respondents' motion to the master was an impermissible attempt to vary a prior order and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding informant privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the master's prior order contemplated protective terms for productions and the fresh evidence did not defeat the informant privilege claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.