Bradley W. Miller

This appeal concerned whether the appellants (vendors) were entitled to terminate an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a vacant lot under paragraph 10 (the "annulment clause") of the OREA standard form APS due to writs of execution against title.

The motion judge found the appellants breached the contract by not exercising the annulment power reasonably and ordered specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that a vendor must make genuine efforts to satisfy title requisitions and cannot rely on the annulment clause if encumbrances, such as writs of execution, could be cleared from the sale proceeds.

The appellant, Aayush Choudhary, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a 16-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of other sexual activity under s. 276 of the Criminal Code, failing to resolve material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, and misapprehending material evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision that the "kitchen incident" sexual activity was distinct from the charged offence and properly screened under s. 276.

The court found no material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and concluded that any misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge were inconsequential to the conviction, as the complainant had verbally communicated non-consent.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court order declaring him a vexatious litigant and restricting his access to courts under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge lacked jurisdiction to make such an order on its own initiative, as s. 140 requires an application by an interested person, and there is no inherent common law authority for such orders.

While acknowledging the appellant's history of frivolous litigation, the court reluctantly allowed the appeal and quashed the vexatious litigant order, affirming that underlying dismissals of actions under Rule 2.1.01 remained undisturbed.

The appellants, Joseph Campisi and Campisi LLP (lawyers), appealed a lower court decision that reopened a contingency fee agreement (CFRA) under the Solicitors Act, declared it unenforceable, ordered an assessment of fees, and ordered repayment of $150,000 for excessive fees related to an Accident Benefit Claim.

The Court of Appeal confirmed jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The lawyers challenged the finding that the Accident Benefit Claim fee was "excessive and unreasonable" and the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the Solicitors Act (ss. 24 and 25) or in her assessment of the reasonableness of the fees, which considered factors beyond just hourly rates.

The costs award was also upheld.

The appellant, a justice of the peace, wrote a newspaper article criticizing the conduct of Crown prosecutors in bail courts.

A Hearing Panel found she committed judicial misconduct and recommended her removal from office, finding she was irremediably biased against Crown prosecutors.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the Panel's finding of bias was unreasonable as it relied on a subjective test and lacked evidentiary support.

The Court further held that the recommendation for removal was grossly disproportionate, failed to properly apply the Doré framework to balance the appellant's Charter right to freedom of expression, and ignored mitigating factors.

The appeal was allowed, and a reprimand with a 30-day suspension without pay was substituted.

The appellant, S.M., appealed convictions on eight counts related to human trafficking for sex work and assault causing bodily harm, as well as the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

Key issues included the application of the s. 276 screening procedure to sex trafficking offences and the trial judge's credibility findings.

The court also addressed the appellant's argument regarding the trial judge's failure to consider systemic anti-Black racism in sentencing, finding no error as the issue was not raised at trial and no foundation was laid.

The appellant, diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not criminally responsible for violent acts, appealed a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had concluded she remained a significant threat to public safety and that detention, with community privileges, was the least onerous disposition.

The appellant argued the Board erred in its threat assessment and in ordering detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's reasoning was supported by evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's lack of insight into her illness and the risk of decompensation if unsupervised.

The court also found no error in the Board's decision to impose a more restrictive disposition given the changed circumstances, including the failure of a previous treatment regime.

This appeal concerns the admissibility of fresh evidence in an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal's jurisdictional decision under the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the Divisional Court's ruling that such applications are hearings de novo, allowing parties to introduce evidence not previously before the arbitral tribunal, and that the "competence-competence" principle does not limit the court's fact-finding ability in this context.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's decision to admit the fresh evidence.

The appellant, Ersan Buakasa, appealed his conviction for firearm-related offences, arguing that the gun and ammunition found in his car should have been excluded as evidence due to violations of his Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)).

The trial judge had found the warrantless search of the car justified as a stand-alone safety search, and while finding breaches of ss. 10(a) and (b), did not exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the search was a lawful and justified safety search.

The court affirmed that the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe there was an imminent threat to public safety, justifying the search, and that the evidence should not be excluded even if there were Charter breaches.

This is a complex set of appeals concerning anti-SLAPP motions.

The appellants (Catalyst parties) appealed the dismissal of two of their actions (Defamation and Wolfpack actions) and the dismissal of their partial anti-SLAPP motion against a counterclaim.

The court dismissed all appeals, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Catalyst parties' actions were strategic attempts to silence critics, lacked substantial merit against some respondents, and that the public interest in protecting expression outweighed the public interest in continuing the proceedings.

The court also upheld the costs awards against the Catalyst parties, emphasizing the deterrent purpose of anti-SLAPP legislation against abusive litigation.

The appellant, Jabir Khan, appealed his convictions for possessing a restricted firearm and occupying a vehicle with a firearm.

He argued that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a s. 24(2) analysis regarding the firearm's exclusion and materially misapprehended evidence, leading to an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the s. 24(2) argument was inappropriately raised for the first time on appeal.

The court also found no material misapprehension of evidence, upholding the trial judge's thorough and compelling reasons for rejecting the appellant's testimony due to its illogical nature and inconsistencies with audio surveillance and circumstantial evidence.

The appellants, convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder, appealed their convictions and sentences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals for first-degree murder convictions, ordering a new trial due to the trial judge's error in restricting routes to liability and failing to leave included offenses (second-degree murder and manslaughter) to the jury.

The court found that the murder and attempted murder charges were not inextricably linked.

The appeals on the attempted murder convictions were dismissed, and leave to appeal the life sentences for attempted murder was granted but the appeals were dismissed, finding no error in principle in the sentencing.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility and reliability of two Vetrovec witnesses.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's cautious approach and search for confirmation.

The sentence was also found to be fit with no error in principle.

The conviction appeal and leave to appeal sentence were dismissed.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to commit the respondent, Jayant Bhatia, into custody for extradition to the United States for prosecution on fraud charges.

Bhatia brought a disclosure application regarding a cooperating witness (CW-1), arguing CW-1's identification evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The court summarily dismissed the disclosure application, finding that a witness's cooperation or criminal record is insufficient to deem evidence manifestly unreliable in an extradition context, and that ample independent evidence of identification existed.

The court then granted the committal order for extradition, finding sufficient evidence for trial on all essential elements of fraud, including identification.

The appellant, Nathaniel Tulloch, appealed a sentence imposed after pleading guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm, robbery, and use of an imitation firearm.

The sentencing judge had accepted a joint submission for a global custodial term, but all parties inadvertently overlooked section 85(4) of the Criminal Code, which mandates that the sentence for the imitation firearm offence be served consecutively.

The sentencing judge acknowledged the error but was functus officio.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, supported by the Crown, and varied the sentence to ensure the section 85(2)(a) offence was served consecutively, while adjusting the other counts to maintain the originally intended global sentence.

The appellant appealed a permanent injunction that prevented the operation of his tavern, Paradise Night Club, without a municipal business license.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's decision.

The court found that the municipal Business Licensing By-law applied to the appellant's business and did not conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario under the Liquor Licence and Control Act, 2019.

The court reiterated that a business can be required to hold multiple licenses and that an injunction to enforce a bylaw should only be refused in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

The appellant, an Ontario corporation, appealed the dismissal of its action against a Spanish law firm for alleged negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation regarding patent applications.

The action was dismissed at first instance for lack of jurisdiction, as the motion judge found the appellant failed to establish a good arguable case for the factual allegations underpinning jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the law regarding presumptive connecting factors and the requirement to establish a "good arguable case" for jurisdictional facts.

The Court also rejected allegations of judicial bias and dismissed a motion for leave to appeal costs, awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The appellants, suspected of defrauding the respondents of over US $71 million, entered into a settlement agreement requiring them to return assets in exchange for the respondents discontinuing various global civil proceedings.

The appellants brought a motion to compel the respondents to also withdraw Interpol Red Notices and discontinue criminal proceedings in Iran, or alternatively to set aside the settlement.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondents only agreed to request the withdrawal of criminal proceedings, as they had no authority to unilaterally dismiss them.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the settlement agreement and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted in a judge-alone trial of two counts of sexual assault and one count of choking, receiving a three-year sentence.

He appealed his convictions, arguing errors in the assessment of corroborative evidence, conflation of credibility and reliability, and reliance on stereotypes regarding witness reticence.

He also sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction, finding the trial judge's assessment of evidence, including an audio recording, was sound and that any comment on witness reticence was not material to the decision.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was deemed entirely fit given the serious nature of the assaults, breach of trust, and attempts to subvert justice.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a modular mobile home park.

The core issue was whether the appellants delivered a notice of fulfilment of a condition before the deadline.

The application judge found they had not, rendering the agreement null and void.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the application judge's factual findings, credibility assessment, or weighing of evidence.

The appellate court declined to re-weigh the evidence, affirming the lower court's decision.