Benjamin Zarnett

Appeal from a trial decision addressing all issues arising from the separation of the parties, including parenting arrangements, imputation of income, child support (including section 7 expenses and retroactivity), spousal support, the validity of a marriage contract, and equalization.

The appellant father challenged nearly every aspect of the trial judgment, alleging 42 errors.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's findings on parenting arrangements, income imputation, section 7 expenses, spousal support, and the validity of the marriage contract, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The motion for fresh evidence was dismissed, as was the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

This is a case management decision in an appeal of a Superior Court judgment that declared section 195.6 of the Highway Traffic Act infringed section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The decision addresses the timetable for the appeal and the appellants' motion to expedite the hearing.

The Court of Appeal established a detailed timetable culminating in a hearing date of January 28, 2026, balancing the public importance of the issues with the need for proper briefing and consideration of intervention requests.

This is the third appeal brought by the respondent in a family law proceeding concerning equalization payments and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellant sought to appeal an order of eviction from the matrimonial home and a power of sale granted by the trial judge due to the appellant's intransigence in the sale process.

The appellant also appealed a costs award of $36,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the eviction and power of sale order as an abuse of process, noting it was an attempt to circumvent two previous appeals that had been dismissed for delay.

The appeal was also found to be moot as the matrimonial home had already been sold.

The costs appeal was dismissed as the trial judge committed no reviewable error in awarding substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's unreasonable conduct.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing its application for a declaration of rights respecting an easement held by the respondent over a portion of the appellant's lands.

The appellant argued that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error regarding the extent of the easement, claiming it extended from the shoreline into the channel.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

An appeal concerning the correct appellate jurisdiction and the discretionary transfer of an appeal.

The parties had a divorce order made in Texas that included parenting terms.

The Ontario Court of Justice found jurisdiction to address parenting issues.

The mother appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal for Ontario under section 73(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The mother requested a transfer to the Court of Appeal late in oral submissions, which the Superior Court judge declined.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court judge's characterization of the order and her discretionary decision not to transfer.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing a firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and carelessly storing a firearm.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The trial judge found that the appellant had joint possession of a firearm his brother displayed during an altercation at a McDonald's, based on the appellant's position and actions.

The trial judge also found the appellant was a party to the careless storage of two firearms discovered in an alley after police pursuit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly applied the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and that her findings and inferences were reasonably available on the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing a motion.

The respondent CIBC conceded that the appellant was not provided with the opportunity to make submissions in response to CIBC's Rule 2.1.01 motion.

The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, set aside the order, and remitted the motion to the Superior Court to be heard by another judge.

The Court made no determination as to the merits of the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, allowing the appellant to renew those arguments before the judge hearing the motion.

No costs were awarded.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition order dated December 13, 2024.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge or, alternatively, authorization for 14-day travel passes to the United States.

The Board maintained a detention order requiring continued residence at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community housing privileges and extended Canadian travel passes to 14 days.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in law and that the disposition was reasonable and not a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, possession of child pornography, making sexually explicit material available to a child, and assault.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider expert evidence regarding his cognitive disability when admitting his police statements and assessing his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's admission of the statements or credibility assessment.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding two errors in principle: the trial judge failed to recognize that the appellant's intellectual disability attenuated his moral blameworthiness despite his understanding of consequences, and the trial judge erred in refusing to grant COVID-19 credit.

The sentence was reduced from six years to four years and three months.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching entered on November 22, 2023.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury to disregard Crown closing submissions regarding the absence of the complainant's mother's testimony about witnessing the alleged incidents.

The appellant argued that the Crown's submission was improper because the mother had told police she witnessed an incident that was not testified to at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Crown properly based its submission on evidence actually led at trial and that defence counsel's failure to cross-examine the mother about her police statement was a tactical decision.

The appellant lawyer appealed the dismissal of his action arising from statements about his COVID-19 litigation, public fundraising, and a complaint made to the legal regulator.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned expressions related to matters of public interest, including the conduct of publicly funded litigation challenging pandemic restrictions and the right of members of the public to complain to the regulator.

The court found no reversible error in the motion judge’s conclusion that the appellant failed to clear the merits hurdle because the respondents had valid defences, including absolute privilege, justification, and fair comment.

It also upheld the finding that the appellant failed to prove sufficiently serious harm caused by the expressions to outweigh the strong public interest in protecting them.

The appeal, including the costs appeal, was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision to allow the respondent’s motion to quash the appeal.

The court reviewed written submissions on costs and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent $8,088.54 in partial indemnity costs.

The appellant, Amy Smith Cox, appealed a detention order of the Ontario Review Board that found she continued to pose a significant threat of serious harm to the public and imposed a no-contact provision with her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the significant threat finding but allowed the appeal in part regarding the no-contact provision, varying it to permit contact with her father at the discretion of the treatment team.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Andrew Zock, who was convicted of sexual assault after a judge-alone trial.

The court found that Zock received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial lawyer elected the mode of trial (judge-alone) without Zock’s informed instructions or advice about his right to a jury trial.

The court set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial before a judge and jury, finding that the loss of the right to elect the mode of trial constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the verdict was unreasonable, holding that the trial judge’s finding of incapacity to consent was supported by the evidence.

The appellant, Milad Babadi, sought to reopen his appeal from convictions and sentence after his appeal was previously dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario declined to admit new evidence and dismissed the motion to reopen, finding no compelling basis to do so and confirming the finality of its earlier decision.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed their motion for leave to appeal an arbitrator's award.

The respondent moved to quash the appellants' motion, arguing that no appeal lies from a refusal to grant leave to appeal an arbitral award when decided on the merits.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the application judge did not mistakenly decline jurisdiction but rather determined the leave application on its merits.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the respondent's motion and quashed the appellants' motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant, J.A., appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice upholding a finding by the Consent and Capacity Board that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the lower court’s decision, upholding the dismissal of the appellant’s adjournment request and the application of the relevant legal principles regarding capacity and consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Ahmed Othman, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred by not leaving the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent with the jury.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in concluding there was no air of reality to the defence, as the evidence presented diametrically opposed versions of events—consent or no consent—without a situation of ambiguity that could support the defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Donald Snoek, appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for a conditional discharge at this time and holding that arguments about alternative conditions should be made at a future hearing before the Board.

This addendum to the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Hillier v. Ontario addresses the appropriate constitutional remedy for unjustified limits on peaceful assembly rights under the Charter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court discusses the principles of “reading in” and “reading down” as remedial tools, ultimately preferring reading down the impugned regulations to exclude peaceful outdoor protests of up to 10 people from the prohibition on gatherings.

The court’s approach is guided by Supreme Court authority and the need to respect legislative intent while vindicating Charter rights.