Bradley W. Miller

The appellant was convicted after a 21-day jury trial of 32 charges including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The convictions arose from a pattern of domestic abuse spanning over 10 years, including facilitation of sexual assault by strangers and assaults with various weapons.

The appellant appealed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and multiple errors in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no merit to the claims of ineffective assistance or errors in the charge to the jury.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its unjust enrichment claim against the respondents on the basis that the action was commenced outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found that the appellant knew or ought to have known of all material facts giving rise to the claim by January 2012, when the respondent admitted under cross-examination that Silverwood had supplied flooring for the M5V Project.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent's testimony that profits were less than the management fee removed the possibility of damage from the appellant's mind, and that the appellant only discovered the actual damage when the respondent later admitted in 2015 that the project had made at least $200,000 in profit.

The action commenced in September 2015 was therefore within the limitation period.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for sexual interference with an 11-year-old child.

The respondent, then 25 years old, had befriended the victim, engaged in grooming behaviour via text and telephone, and subsequently raped her.

The trial judge sentenced him to 30 months' imprisonment with 15 months credit for presentence custody.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to give proper effect to the principles of deterrence and denunciation, by failing to recognize that the respondent had sought out a young girl, and by failing to consider the significant impact of the offence on the victim as a separate aggravating circumstance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and increased the sentence to 33 months' imprisonment (resulting in an effective sentence of 4 years after credit for presentence custody).

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision dismissing his appeal of an assault conviction.

The appellant had been represented at trial by a law student from a legal aid clinic and argued on appeal that he received ineffective legal representation because his counsel failed to raise Charter issues regarding a strip search conducted after his arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Summary Conviction Appeal Court Judge's determination regarding the reasonableness of the legal representation was a case-specific determination that did not extend beyond the four corners of the case and was not clearly wrong.

The other issues raised by the appellant also failed to meet the test for leave to appeal.

Jordan McPhee pleaded guilty to sexual assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and robbery.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation.

The court, considering McPhee's criminal record, a subsequent aggravated assault conviction, and a psychiatric risk assessment, found him to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a likelihood of causing death, injury, or severe psychological damage.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of six years imprisonment (less pre-sentence custody) followed by a ten-year Long Term Supervision Order, with specific recommendations for conditions to the parole board.

A police officer was convicted of sexually assaulting a complainant by performing searches of her while transporting her to a police station.

At trial, the trial judge admitted a prior consistent statement made by the complainant to a female officer at the police station, in which the complainant stated she had already been searched three times.

The summary conviction appeal judge quashed the conviction, finding the trial judge erred in admitting and relying on the prior consistent statement.

The Crown appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the prior consistent statement was admissible under the narrative as circumstantial evidence exception to the rule against prior consistent statements, and that the trial judge properly used the statement to assess the complainant's credibility by considering the context, timing, and spontaneous nature of the complaint.

The Crown appealed a decision by Justice Maranger dismissing an application for certiorari and mandamus relating to a preliminary inquiry judge's ruling discharging the respondent on count five of an information.

The Crown had subsequently preferred a six-count indictment with count six being identical to the discharged count five.

The respondent's counsel conceded in oral argument that the indictment was properly preferred under s. 574.1(b) and indicated no intention to challenge it at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot but commented on the merits, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge had committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider all evidence relevant to the amended count five, which alleged a continuing sexual assault over a three-year period in Ontario and Quebec.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after an 18-year marriage.

The applicant sought spousal support and equalization, while the respondent sought child support and equalization.

The court divided the respondent's pension at source and imputed additional income to him for post-retirement work.

The court found the applicant liable for child support arrears for the parties' adult children attending post-secondary education.

The court also found the applicant entitled to compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support.

After setting off the child support arrears against the equalization payment and spousal support arrears, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a net amount of $7,340.14, plus ongoing spousal support.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 months plus two years' probation for sexual assault.

He argued that the sentencing judge applied the wrong sentencing range, contending that the appropriate range for intercourse with an unconscious complainant was 12 to 14 months to three years, rather than the 21 months to four years range for forced intercourse with a spouse.

The appellant submitted that a sentence of six to ten months was fit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly applied the sentencing range and that the sentence imposed was fit in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest and breath demand.

The appellant contended the officer only had a 'suspicion' of impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court reviewed the trial judge's findings, which relied on the severe unexplained collision, the appellant's disorientation, unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, and admission of consumption.

The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the officer possessed both a subjective belief and objective grounds for impairment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found that police had reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant following observation of a suspected drug transaction.

Although the trial judge found a breach of s. 8 of the Charter regarding a warrantless entry into the appellant's apartment, she held that a subsequent search warrant was validly issued and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's analysis of reasonable grounds for arrest, reasonable expectation of privacy, the validity of the search warrant, or the s. 24(2) analysis.

The appellants, a law firm and its principals, appealed a charging order granted by the application judge in favour of the respondent law firm.

The respondent had been retained as co-counsel on a contingency fee basis to assist with two minor plaintiffs' claims but the relationship broke down and the appellants terminated the agency agreements without paying the respondent's fees and disbursements.

The respondent applied for charging orders under section 34 of the Solicitors Act to secure payment from any eventual recovery.

The Court of Appeal upheld the charging orders, finding that all elements of the test were satisfied and that the order would apply only to the contingency fee percentage and disbursements, not the entire recovery.

This is an addendum to the Court of Appeal's decision on an appeal from a Superior Court order regarding family law matters, specifically concerning support.

The appellant sought relief regarding costs awarded to the respondent on the motion below.

Although this relief was requested in the Notice of Appeal, it was not addressed in the original submissions or reasons.

Following written submissions from both parties, the Court of Appeal quashed the cost order from the motion below and remitted the costs issue back to the motion judge for discretionary determination.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment concerning the scope and use of a right-of-way to access her garage.

The appellant raised three arguments: (1) that the application judge erred in interpreting the right-of-way as providing access only along the existing laneway; (2) that fence posts erected by the respondents interfered with the right-of-way; and (3) that the form of the order was deficient because undertakings were not included in the formal order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings on all grounds, finding no legal error or misapprehension of evidence regarding the scope of the right-of-way, noting the fence post issue was moot as the posts had been removed, and finding no significant difference between including undertakings in the formal order versus the recitals.

The main appeal was dismissed, with the costs question deferred pending receipt of written submissions.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that varied a prior order by deleting certain paragraphs and quashing a summons to witnesses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the witnesses and their documents had no relevance to the motion or the underlying claim against the bank.

The court directed that discoveries proceed before any further motions seeking to compel evidence or documents from third parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence for sexual assault and invitation to touching a person under the age of 14 for a sexual purpose.

The conviction appeal was dismissed as the trial judge's reasons were sufficient and addressed all material issues.

The sentence appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge imposed a sentence exceeding the Crown's submissions without providing notice or opportunity for further submissions, constituting an error in principle.

The appellate court reassessed the sentence and imposed a global sentence of six years (44 months consecutive to the prior 28-month sentence) rather than the trial judge's six years and four months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching.

He raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge interfered with defence counsel's cross-examination of the complainant, diverting counsel from relevant lines of inquiry; and second, that the trial judge's reasons were unbalanced, favoured the Crown, and failed to resolve material conflicts in evidence or meaningfully scrutinize the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds, finding that the trial judge's interventions were appropriate and necessary to ensure fair treatment of the witness and clarity of evidence, and that her reasons were careful, detailed, and balanced.

The appeal was dismissed.

Conviction appeal from a judge-alone trial for break and enter and robbery.

The sole issue was identification.

The appellant was identified by two witnesses who knew him as "Mack Truck" from a social group.

The witnesses identified him despite being masked and partially obscured during the incident.

The trial judge accepted the identification evidence based on recognition rather than identification of a stranger, and rejected the appellant's denial and his co-accused's claim of amnesia.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly considered the frailties of identification evidence while recognizing that recognition evidence by acquainted witnesses carries different considerations than stranger identification.

A solicitor appealed a motion judge's order regarding the assessment of legal accounts rendered to a client.

The solicitor challenged the characterization of 37 of 38 accounts as interim accounts falling within the limitation period for assessment, and sought production of the client's communications with another lawyer and tax documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, finding no error in characterizing the accounts as interim based on the retainer agreement, account markings, and transmittal letters.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse production of the requested documents as irrelevant to the assessment issues.

This is a procedural appeal concerning the construction of the trial record.

The respondents sued the appellants for misappropriation of funds from an apartment building.

At trial, the trial judge relied on expert accounting evidence from the respondents' expert and refused to allow the appellants to adduce their own expert evidence late in the trial.

On appeal, the appellants sought to include in their appeal book both their own expert's report and portions of the respondents' expert's report that had not been made exhibits at trial.

A chambers judge ordered these materials excised from the appeal book.

The appellants appealed this decision to the panel.