Bradley W. Miller

The moving party, Fariborz Tavana, on behalf of Master Tech Inc., sought to set aside an order dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The underlying appeal related to a costs order and the dismissal of an action.

The Court of Appeal identified several impediments, including the dissolution of Master Tech Inc., Mr. Tavana's lack of authority to act for the corporation, and the absence of any reviewable error in the prior decision.

The court found no arguable merit to the proposed appeal and a consistent pattern of delay.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal was advised that the trial, which addressed equalization, child support, and spousal support, had recently concluded but the trial reasons for decision had not yet been released.

The appellant argued that the appeal should not proceed without these reasons, a position the respondent's counsel acknowledged as arguably premature.

Given the significance of equalization and the issues before the panel, the Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal until after the trial reasons are released.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the attendance.

The appellant, Wasif Rashidi, appealed a summary judgment order awarding damages to M.T. Johnstone Construction Ltd. for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellant failed to close on a property purchase and argued he was orally promised an assignment, which was not honoured, and that the respondent failed to mitigate damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the realtor was the appellant's agent, the assignment conditions were not met, and the respondent had reasonably mitigated damages.

The court also rejected arguments of economic frustration and judicial bias.

The appellant, Manjunath C. Kuppa, appealed an order striking his pleadings (and those of two other respondents) due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and non-disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings was an appropriate remedy in these exceptional circumstances, consistent with the Family Law Rules' objective of dealing with cases justly, especially when lesser remedies had proven futile.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The appellant, convicted of drugging and sexually assaulting 14 women and designated a dangerous offender with an indeterminate sentence, appealed his convictions on three counts and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

The court found no reviewable error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, the use of similar fact evidence (despite a procedural oversight which was deemed harmless), or the determination that a determinate sentence would not adequately protect the public given the appellant's high risk of reoffending due to antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.

The appellant, a disbarred lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his application for a certificate of appointment as estate trustee with a will.

The application judge had refused the appointment due to concerns about the appellant's potential unlicensed practice of law, given his professional history and involvement in the will's preparation and subsequent rapid steps to secure his appointment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, confirming the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction to refuse an estate trustee appointment, even if unopposed, to uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court also dismissed a motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it could have been adduced earlier.

The appellants, a real estate agent and brokerage, appealed a trial judge's order requiring them to pay damages to their former clients, the respondents.

The trial judge found that the appellants negligently misrepresented the location of a proposed development, leading the respondents to enter an agreement of purchase and sale and forfeit a $120,000 deposit in a settlement with the developer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the misrepresentation was negligent (not requiring expert evidence for a non-technical matter) and that the respondents' damages were caused by the misrepresentation.

The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the respondents should have completed the purchase or failed to mitigate their losses.

Marc Gauthier appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of Tammy Avery.

The appeal raised two main issues: the admissibility of a voicemail left for his doctor (Dr. Morrison) and the voluntariness of confessions made to police and correctional officers.

The Court of Appeal found no reasonable expectation of privacy in the voicemail, as it constituted criminal harassment, and thus it was admissible.

While the court found the trial judge erred in admitting the confessions due to an inadequate evidentiary record regarding voluntariness, it applied the curative proviso, concluding that this error did not impact the verdict as the confessions only confirmed the undisputed fact of the killing, not the mens rea for first-degree murder.

The appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses thirteen motions for leave to intervene in an appeal challenging the constitutionality of Canada's single member plurality (SMP) electoral system under sections 3 and 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court applied the test for leave to intervene, emphasizing the requirement for a useful and distinct contribution without causing duplication or unfairness.

Six motions were granted, including those from groups offering unique perspectives on Indigenous representation, international law, constitutional status of SMP, and substantive equality.

Seven motions were dismissed for largely duplicating the appellants' arguments.

This is a costs endorsement following a grouped set of appeals and cross-appeals where all parties were entirely unsuccessful.

The court declined to award costs, rejecting the franchisor parties' argument to parse success across various elements of the appeals and cross-appeals.

The court found it inappropriate to do so, concluding that since no party achieved any degree of success, no costs should be awarded.

This is a costs endorsement following appeals and cross-appeals in three inter-related actions.

The Court of Appeal had previously granted Samuel Jacob Berkovits' appeal in the "Murder for Hire Action" and dismissed all other appeals and cross-appeals brought by Harold Gerstel and the Gerstel parties.

The parties were unable to agree on costs.

The court found the Berkovits parties to be more successful overall.

It ordered Harold Gerstel to pay $28,000 in all-inclusive costs to Samuel Jacob Berkovits for his unsuccessful cross-appeal in the Murder for Hire Action.

Additionally, the Gerstel parties were held jointly and severally liable to the Berkovits parties for $28,000 in all-inclusive costs for their unsuccessful appeal in the Interference Action.

No costs were awarded in the "Town Crier Action" due to divided success.

Maria Konstan and Samuel Jacob Berkovits had already settled their costs for the Murder for Hire appeal and trial.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision enforcing an international arbitral award.

The appellant (LinkGlobal Food Inc.) sought an adjournment in the lower court to obtain evidence regarding alleged failures of natural justice in the arbitration, which was denied.

The application judge enforced the award.

On appeal, LinkGlobal argued the denial of the adjournment was contrary to the interests of justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's discretionary decision, noting the appellant's lack of diligence in obtaining evidence and the narrow scope for refusing foreign arbitral awards.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision denying an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the appellant, Brooke Dietrich, under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent, 40 Days for Life, an anti-abortion organization, sued Dietrich for defamation, internet harassment, fraud, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, and civil conspiracy, following her TikTok videos encouraging disruption of their prayer vigils and online operations.

The motion judge found that 40 Days for Life's claims for defamation, internet harassment, and conspiracy had substantial merit and no valid defence, and that the public interest in continuing the action outweighed the public interest in protecting Dietrich's expression.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reviewable error in her assessment of the merits of the claims (specifically defamation and conspiracy) or in her public interest balancing.

The Court emphasized that Dietrich's expression, which encouraged disruption and interference with 40 Days for Life's operations, was of low value and not the type of counter-speech protected by anti-SLAPP legislation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring him to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support based on imputed income, and a costs order.

The trial judge had drawn a strong adverse inference due to the appellant's "monumental and transnational" failure to make meaningful financial disclosure, imputing income of $130,000 (except $110,000 for 2020).

The appellant argued procedural unfairness regarding document admissibility and errors in income imputation.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness, noting the appellant's own strategic decisions regarding evidence, and upheld the trial judge's findings on income imputation, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant, Steven Parker, appealed his sentence for making available child pornography, possession of child pornography, failing to comply with a probation order, and breaching a prohibition order.

The trial judge had imposed an eight-year sentence for making available child pornography and a concurrent six-year sentence for possession, along with concurrent two-year sentences for the breaches.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider parity with similar sentences and by not applying the jump principle.

The Court reduced the sentence for making available child pornography to six years and for possession to four years, and adjusted pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant mother appealed orders from a motion to change, challenging findings on material change in parenting time, child and spousal support variations due to income changes, and credit for matrimonial home expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings, emphasizing deference to factual conclusions and proper application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

This is an appeal from a medical malpractice judgment where the trial judge found the appellant physician negligent in treating a stroke victim, leading to permanent injuries.

The core issue on appeal was causation: whether the trial judge erred in finding that the physician's negligence caused the injuries, specifically by not requiring the plaintiff to establish precisely which treatment option would have prevented the unfavourable outcome.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's robust and pragmatic application of the "but for" causation test, particularly in the context of an evidentiary gap created by the defendant's negligence.

The appellants, Wesley Moore and St. Jacobs Carpenter House Inc., appealed an order requiring them to cease operating an unlicensed retirement home.

The core issues were whether their facility met the statutory definition of a "retirement home" under the Retirement Homes Act, 2010, specifically regarding the provision of "care services" (meals and drug administration), and whether the application judge erred in finding an abuse of process or in ordering the cessation of operations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings, confirming that the facility provided at least two care services, including a broad interpretation of "administration of a drug" to encompass assistance.

The court also rejected the abuse of process argument and affirmed the judge's power to issue a cease and vacate order under the Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants, Brandon Book and his parents, appealed a trial judge's decision dismissing their motion to set aside a 2015 personal injury settlement.

They argued Brandon was under a disability at the time of settlement and that it was unconscionable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no error in the capacity assessment and that the settlement should not be set aside, even if incapacity had been proven, given the principles of finality of judgments and the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals and a cross-appeal concerning a franchise dispute under the Arthur Wishart Act.

Franchisees Versatile Holdings Inc. and Everest Group Inc. appealed the dismissal of their rescission actions, arguing errors in the burden of proof for disclosure deficiencies and the determination of franchisor's associates.

The franchisor, Paramount Franchise Group Inc., cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that Premium Host Inc. was entitled to statutory compensation, challenging disclosure exemptions, the effect of contract termination on rescission rights, material omission of financial statements, and the finding that Holly Graham and Paramount Leasing were franchisor's associates.

The Court dismissed all appeals and the cross-appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on the burden of proof for rescission, the non-applicability of disclosure exemptions, the right to rescind despite prior termination for breach, the materiality of the financial omission, and the determination of franchisor's associates.