Armstrong

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder after her girlfriend killed the appellant's boyfriend with an axe.

The Crown alleged the appellant planned the murder and manipulated her girlfriend into committing it.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred by giving a Carter instruction (co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule) because the alleged conspiracy involved only two people.

A five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed its prior decision in Bogiatzis, holding that the Carter instruction applies to two-person conspiracies.

The Court found no reversible error in the trial judge's jury instructions regarding the Carter framework, post-offence conduct, or party liability.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal from summary judgment decisions in two related actions involving fraudulent investment schemes, the Court of Appeal determined the costs of the motions and the appeals.

The court upheld the costs and Sanderson order in favour of the successful Mauldin group.

However, because the appellant successfully appealed the summary judgment in the Bruno action, the court set aside the costs and Sanderson order in favour of Bruno, reserving the motion costs to the trial judge and making Bruno liable for the co-defendants' costs.

Costs of the appeals were awarded on a partial indemnity scale.

The mother appealed a trial decision that awarded her custody of the parties' twin children conditional on her return to Sudbury from Mississauga.

The mother also appealed various support orders, including the imputation of income, the termination of child support for an adult child, and the structure of retirement-period spousal support.

The father cross-appealed the retirement-period spousal support and the calculation of section 7 expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no reviewable error in the trial judge's application of the Gordon v. Goertz relocation framework or the support determinations.

The Court did, however, vary the trial judge's order to secure the mother's retirement-period spousal support against the father's pension in the event of his death, and adjusted the mechanics of the custody transfer and support arrears to account for the passage of time.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his contempt motion, setting an access order, and determining child support.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the dismissal of the contempt motion or the access order, noting that the children's ages (almost 17 and 14) required their wishes be given significant weight.

The court affirmed that the respondent mother should encourage the children's relationship with the appellant, but ultimately upheld the motion judge's orders as being in the children's best interests.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no viable defence on the record and that the interests of justice were considered.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, a third mortgagee, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages for an alleged improvident sale and for an accounting under s. 27 of the Mortgages Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong test, the sale was improvident, and the second mortgagee was not entitled to add the first mortgage payout to its claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the wrong test was applied, the respondent took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property.

The court also held the respondent was entitled to the payout amount under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.