Bradley W. Miller

The appellants, 1085638 Ontario Limited and Meadow Valley Garden Centre Ltd., appealed convictions under the Building Code Act and Planning Act related to the operation of a garden centre without proper permits and in violation of zoning.

The appeal focused on two issues: legal non-conforming use under s. 34(9) of the Planning Act and delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that for a legal non-conforming use, the activity must be in active operation on the day the zoning by-law was passed.

Regarding the s. 11(b) claim, the court found no error in the lower court's conclusion that the corporate appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice, applying the pre-Jordan test.

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, appealed his sentence of three years, six months' imprisonment.

He argued the trial judge erred in failing to give effect to mitigating factors, failing to apply the principle of restraint, and failing to give proper credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first two grounds, finding the sentence fit given the gravity of the offence.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part on the third ground, increasing the pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against an obstetrician following a catastrophic birth injury.

The infant suffered acute near-total oxygen deprivation prior to birth, resulting in severe permanent brain damage.

At trial, the judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and no causation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were legally inadequate regarding causation and one of the standard of care issues (the failure to complete the delivery with Kielland forceps).

The reasons failed to explain critical findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered on all issues of liability and damages.

The appellants, Elias Akhi and Jezreel Moxam, appealed their convictions for robbery, assault with a weapon, and other offences arising from a home invasion.

The Court of Appeal found serious errors in the trial judge's jury instructions, specifically regarding party liability (aiding and common intention) and the failure to adequately delineate between the two accused and the multiple counts.

The instructions were deemed confusing and insufficient to properly equip the jury.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered for both appellants.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order, arguing the Board erred in finding she posed a significant public safety risk and seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on significant risk was reasonable, supported by clinical assessment, and that a conditional discharge was not appropriate given the appellant's limited insight and inability to be monitored in the community.

The court also found the Board adequately considered Gladue principles.

The appellant, Ahmed Farah, appealed his convictions for multiple firearms offences, including trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization, and his 12-year custodial sentence.

The main issue at trial was identification, as the Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the alias "Hurdaye" from wiretap investigations.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting Leaney identification evidence from police officers and that the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

He also challenged the sentence, arguing for more credit for harsh remand conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no error in the admission of identification evidence, that the verdict was reasonable given the circumstantial evidence, and no error in the sentencing judge's discretion regarding pre-trial credit.

The appellant, C.J., appealed a conviction for voyeurism and the imposed sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding the conviction reasonable and the sentence appropriate given the serious nature of the offences and the factors considered by the trial judge.

The applicant, Cyprian Osei, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a violation of his s. 11(b) right to trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 1,227 days (approx. 40 months), exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling for Superior Courts.

The court deducted 76 days for defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 1,151 days (38.35 months).

While the COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional circumstance, the court found the Crown was responsible for 15 days of delay within this period.

After deducting the exceptional circumstance period (283 days minus 15 days of Crown delay), the remaining delay was 938 days (31.2 months), still exceeding the Jordan ceiling.

The court found the delay unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the measure of damages for breach of a joint venture partnership agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of a binding partnership agreement and its breach but found an error in the quantification of damages.

The trial judge had incorrectly awarded the respondent the extra capital he invested as damages.

The Court of Appeal clarified that damages should be limited to the cost of borrowing the additional capital incurred due to the breach, up to the date of trial, less a retained deposit.

The appeal was allowed with costs to the appellant.

The appellants, Monica Murad, Aaron Murad, and 997322 Ontario Inc., sought to appeal a non-competition order issued by a motion judge during the receivership of Mill Street & Co. Inc. The motion judge had included the appellants in the order, despite their not being directly implicated in obstruction or fraudulent licensing, because the Murad companies operated as family businesses.

The Court of Appeal found no jurisdiction under s. 193(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act as the right to compete is a present, not future, right.

Leave to appeal under s. 193(e) was denied because the issue of making a non-competition order against a non-party did not arise, as the appellants were considered "Murad Parties" and treated as parties throughout the receivership.

The appeal was quashed.

This appeal concerned the application of s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, specifically when the respondent knew that a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy for unpaid invoices.

The appellant, a condominium corporation, argued the action was time-barred, asserting the trial judge erred in applying discoverability principles and finding a running account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the limitation period began when the respondent was informed the condominium corporation was not obligated to pay invoices, rather than earlier.

The court upheld the running account finding and the application of discoverability principles, noting the defendant's assurances delayed the plaintiff's understanding of the need for litigation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts of attempt murder, aggravated assault, uttering threats, and failure to comply with probation, as well as his 13-year sentence.

The appeal raised issues concerning the trial judge's assessment of intent (capacity vs. actual intent), the admissibility of opinion evidence regarding credibility and demeanour, the alleged misapprehension of evidence concerning the appellant's intoxication and state of mind, and the use of the appellant's out-of-court statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's reasoning or findings.

The appellant, Jerome Turner, appealed his conviction and sentence for five counts of armed robbery.

The appeal raised issues concerning the trial judge's similar fact evidence ruling, the admission of post-offence conduct evidence, and Section 8 Charter rulings regarding cellphone data obtained via production order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the similar fact test, the admission of post-offence conduct evidence, or the Section 8 analysis.

The court also found the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, noting the appellant's prior criminal history and the timing of the offences.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety lacked evidentiary support, particularly concerning the link between substance use and mental decompensation or medication non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the expert opinion of the appellant's treatment team, which was based on years of experience.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from convictions for sexual assault, assault, and criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed an error of law by discounting the accused's credibility on the basis that his evidence was "tailored" to fit Crown disclosure or evidence heard in court.

The court reiterated that such an inference is impermissible as it turns constitutional rights against the accused.

The error was deemed prominent in the trial judge's credibility assessment, which was the central issue.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants, Jasmine and Richard Doxtator, appealed their first-degree murder convictions.

Their primary argument was that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the included offences of second-degree murder and manslaughter for Jasmine Doxtator, which they argued also impacted Richard Doxtator's trial.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision, agreed that there was an "air of reality" to the lesser included offences for Jasmine Doxtator, and the trial judge's failure to leave these options to the jury constituted a legal error that tainted the verdict for both appellants.

The court rejected the Crown's argument to apply the curative proviso.

Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and a new trial was ordered for both Jasmine and Richard Doxtator.

The appellant appealed his 21-month custodial sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the sentencing judge erred in applying the parity principle by imposing a sentence almost double that of his co-accused, who pleaded guilty and had a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

The court affirmed that the sentencing judge properly considered the parity principle and other factors like denunciation and deterrence, noting that the co-accused's guilty plea was a mitigating factor not available to the appellant, justifying the disparity.

The appellant, George Olivetti, appealed a four-year sentence for possessing and accessing child pornography, which was imposed following a joint submission.

The appeal court found the original sentence to be fit, considering the large collection of child pornography and a prior criminal record for similar offences, despite the appellant's age, guilty plea, and expressed remorse.

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that updated personal and medical information did not justify a reduction and that such issues are best addressed by the Parole Board of Canada.

The appellant, Bismark Barrett, appealed his 30-month sentence for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He sought a conditional sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge took an unduly narrow view of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on inmates, specifically regarding the risk of infection and the negative impact of institutional measures like lockdowns and program suspensions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's discretionary decision not to reduce the sentence based on Covid-19 related deprivations.

The appellant appealed his sentence following guilty pleas to mischief, possession of a restricted firearm, and possession of methamphetamine.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by not granting 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody due to COVID-19 and claimed he was forced into a joint submission by trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the credit was part of a joint submission and the ineffective assistance claim was unsubstantiated.

However, the Crown conceded that the 15-month sentence for one count of possession of a controlled substance exceeded the 12-month statutory maximum for a summary conviction.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the sentence on that count to 365 days, less pre-sentence custody.