Alexandra Hoy

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment against him.

The underlying action related to funds advanced by the respondent to the appellant and her daughter to purchase a home, which the appellant claimed were a gift rather than a loan.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no air of reality to the defence, given the appellant's own written communications admitting to the indebtedness and corroborating evidence from a mortgage broker.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff sued his former employer and a disability insurer for long-term disability benefits after suffering a stroke shortly after his termination.

In his reply to the employer's statement of defence, the plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal.

The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the reply raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the statement of claim's factual matrix provided sufficient notice of the wrongful dismissal claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the wrongful dismissal claim was not a new cause of action and came as no surprise to the employer.

The appellant appealed a preservation order requiring him to deliver luxury vehicles or their sale proceeds to the respondent trustee in bankruptcy, and freezing his bank accounts.

The appellant argued he only acquired a beneficial interest in the vehicles when a court declared a trust agreement valid, years after his bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's beneficial interest existed at the time of his bankruptcy pursuant to the trust agreement, and the motion judge made no error in principle in exercising his discretion to make the preservation order.

The appellant purchaser sought the return of its deposit after aborting a commercial real estate transaction due to environmental issues and a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Prohibition registered on title.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the purchaser had waived the environmental condition and failed to adduce evidence that it had not received the environmental order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the waiver of the environmental condition effectively waived the title objection, and that the purchaser bore the evidentiary burden on summary judgment to prove it had not received the order.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences against two child complainants and sought leave to appeal a ten-year concurrent sentence.

The court upheld the admission of extrinsic similar fact evidence from two other witnesses, finding the trial judge properly applied the governing framework and reasonably concluded the evidence's probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect on the issue of actus reus and the credibility of a blanket denial.

The court also held that allegedly improper bad character evidence caused no prejudice because the trial judge effectively disregarded it.

Although the sentencing judge erred by treating extrinsic misconduct as aggravating without the required findings, the sentence remained fit and was upheld.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the Board erred by failing to issue the least onerous and restrictive disposition, seeking a transfer to a less secure facility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct test and reasonably concluded that continued detention at the secure facility was necessary for public protection given the appellant's recent history of violence and recent medication change.

The mother of a child subject to Crown wardship proceedings brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal of a decision dismissing the father's appeal.

The mother had not participated in the trial or the initial appeal.

The Court of Appeal applied the Kefeli factors and dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had not formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay, and that her appeal lacked merit as she had not seen the child in over three years and had not participated in the proceedings below.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant while she was sleeping.

At trial, the appellant denied any sexual contact, but on appeal argued the trial judge erred by not considering the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Judge found no air of reality to this defence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding no clear error in the lower court's conclusion that a defence incompatible with the accused's own testimony lacked an air of reality.

The appellant, a car mechanic, issued a Safety Standards Certificate for a truck without conducting the required inspection.

The truck was later involved in a fatal accident.

At the preliminary inquiry, the appellant was discharged on a count of criminal negligence causing death based on a break in the chain of causation.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari to quash the discharge.

On appeal, the appellant argued there was insufficient evidence that the steering defect existed when the certificate was issued.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence, including expert testimony and witness accounts, for a properly instructed jury to find the appellant's actions were a significant contributing cause of the death.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 0.80.

The appellant argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding no clear error by the summary conviction appeal judge and noting the case involved well-settled legal principles with no broader significance to the administration of justice.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a five-year penitentiary sentence imposed after the respondent pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences against his daughter.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge misapprehended the applicable range for repeated parental sexual abuse and whether the sentence was manifestly unfit in light of prior authorities and the respondent's dated prior sexual offence record.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not treat the earlier authority as binding in a way that precluded a higher sentence and remained alive to both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Although the sentence was at the bottom of the applicable range, it was not manifestly unfit.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal based on the respondent's failure to properly serve the originating documents, the parties could not agree on the disposition of costs below.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the costs below, fixed at $100,000, be in the cause of the new application, provided the respondent proceeds with the application within three months.

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with an access order regarding the parties' daughter.

The mother argued that the child refused to attend access visits and that she had done her best to encourage attendance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the mother had effectively abdicated her parental authority by leaving the decision to the child and failing to take concrete measures beyond mere encouragement.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal determined the specific terms for the appellant's conditional sentence and probation.

The 14-month conditional sentence includes statutory conditions, a no-contact order, eight months of house arrest with exceptions, and a curfew for the remainder.

A one-year probation period follows with similar no-contact conditions.

The appellant, an investment advisor, appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment of over $100,000 granted in favour of the respondents (his former parents-in-law).

The respondents had co-signed a loan and pledged securities for the appellant.

When the loan went into default, the respondents paid $13,877.36 to protect their securities and sued the appellant for damages, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in concluding the appellant had no arguable defence, as the default judgment awarded damages the respondents had not actually suffered and granted declaratory relief not sought in the Statement of Claim.

The default judgment was set aside and substituted with a judgment for the $13,877.36 actually paid by the respondents.

The appellant applied to re-open his sentence appeal and introduce fresh evidence regarding the immigration consequences of his 26-month sentence for fraud over $5,000.

The fresh evidence demonstrated that a sentence of two years or more would deprive him of the right to appeal a deportation order.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, admitted the fresh evidence, and reduced the sentence to two years less a day, noting the appellant's long-term residence in Canada, family ties, and lack of connections to his homeland.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits but denied non-earner benefits in 2004.

After income replacement benefits were terminated in 2006, the appellant sought non-earner benefits in 2009 and commenced an action in 2012.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as time-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the two-year limitation period for non-earner benefits began to run when the insurer initially refused them in 2004, even while the appellant was receiving income replacement benefits.

The young person appealed findings of guilt for robbery, weapons dangerous, and possession of stolen property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the robbery conviction, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and the verdict reasonable based on the appellant's proximity to the robbery, flight from police, and recent possession of stolen property.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to apply the Kienapple principle, staying the findings of guilt for weapons dangerous and possession of stolen property to avoid multiple convictions.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the mens rea, that his language rights were violated, and that a probation condition banishing him from Prince Edward County was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the objective mens rea standard from R. v. Beatty, the appellant had explicitly waived a French trial, and his counsel had consented to the banishment condition at sentencing.

The appellant, who claimed to have a spiritual healing gift from God, was convicted of sexual assault and breaching recognizance conditions after touching a client's breast without consent during healing sessions.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias, and erred in finding he breached his recognizance and committed sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge managed the trial fairly, the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted, and the convictions were supported by credible evidence.