Bradley W. Miller

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, mischief, threatening death, and assault with a weapon, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering her continued detention in a forensic psychiatric facility.

The appellant challenged the Board's application of the significant risk test and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the legal test applied or its application to the evidence.

The Board properly considered the appellant's history of medication non-compliance, continued cannabis use in breach of conditions, and recent aggressive incidents with co-patients as active risk factors supporting a finding of significant risk to public safety.

The appellant was convicted of four counts of sexual abuse and one count of threatening bodily harm against his daughter.

On appeal, the appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to use evidence of the appellant's prior convictions for assault of his wife to determine whether the wife testified out of fear, and second, that the trial judge's review of the appellant's evidence was brief and unbalanced.

The Court of Appeal found no error in either ruling and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of attempting to purchase sexual services from a young person through an undercover police sting operation (Project Raphael).

He was sentenced to eight months in jail and two years of probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on Charter grounds and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the arrest was lawful and the trial judge properly applied the legal test for objective reasonableness.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to six months less one day to preserve the appellant's right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division, as a sentence exceeding six months would result in deportation as a permanent resident.

Two appellants were convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence arising from a home invasion in Mississauga.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence, cell phone tower records, Blackberry Messenger text messages, and circumstantial inferences to establish identity.

The appellants challenged their convictions on various grounds, including the reasonableness of the verdicts and the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both conviction appeals, finding the trial judge properly considered the cumulative effect of the evidence and correctly applied exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Both appellants received nine-year sentences; the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals but allowed the sentence appeals in part by setting aside victim fine surcharges and adjusting presentence custody credits.

The appellant appealed a 20-year sentence of imprisonment imposed in 2014 for historical sexual offences committed in 1981 and 1993.

The appellant pleaded guilty to rape, sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, robbery, and uttering death threats.

The sentencing judge imposed consecutive sentences emphasizing the need to separate the offender from society based on his high risk assessment and violent criminal record.

The appellant challenged the sentence on multiple grounds, including claims regarding the weight given to mitigating factors and the impact of pre- and post-sentence solitary confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence entirely fit given the circumstances of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the sentencing objectives of denunciation and public protection.

The appellant appealed her conviction for attempting to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking and her sentence of 9 years imprisonment (less 36 days credit for pre-trial custody).

The conviction arose from the appellant's pickup of a shipment containing 3.3 kilograms of heroin that had been intercepted at Pearson International Airport and replaced with a control sample by police.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of misapprehension of evidence and unreasonableness of verdict, and sought sentence reduction based on alleged errors in principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge's findings of fact and sentencing decision to be reasonable and fit.

A teenage plaintiff was catastrophically injured when she deliberately jumped from a moving school bus on the last day of Grade 8 as part of an informal tradition among graduating students.

The bus operator had received prior reports of students jumping from buses but failed to report these incidents to the school as required by its own handbook.

A jury found the defendant 75 per cent liable and the plaintiff 25 per cent contributorily negligent, awarding substantial damages.

The defendant appealed on grounds of improper jury charge regarding causation and contributory negligence, erroneous removal of the mitigation issue from the jury, and failure to deduct statutory accident benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the jury verdict on causation and contributory negligence, found the trial judge erred in removing mitigation from the jury but determined no miscarriage of justice resulted, and remitted the statutory accident benefits deduction issue to the Superior Court for determination.

The appellant appealed his sentence of ten years and two months imposed for arson causing bodily harm and arson causing property damage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence as fit, finding that even if the trial judge erred in referring to an aggravating factor, it had no impact on the global sentence.

The court confirmed that consecutive sentences were appropriately imposed as the offences involved different elements.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and any victim fine surcharge was set aside.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice on a youth offender convicted of sexual assault.

The trial judge imposed a deferred custody order under s. 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that serious bodily harm was not caused.

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion was a clear error based on the trial judge's own findings regarding the life-altering impact of the assault.

The court held that a deferred custody order was not available and the sentence was illegal.

The appeal was allowed, the illegal sentence was set aside, and a six-month nine-day custody and supervision order was imposed with credit for time served, along with a one-year probation order and a mandatory two-year weapons prohibition.

The appellant was convicted of drug offences arising from his participation in a conspiracy to import cocaine from Costa Rica to Toronto.

The conspiracy was thwarted and drugs were seized by Panamanian authorities.

The trial judge admitted laboratory evidence from Panamanian authorities obtained pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, which established that the seized substance was cocaine.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted section 36(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and that the provision was unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that section 36(1) properly permits the admission of foreign records containing hearsay and opinion evidence without requiring proof of necessity or threshold reliability, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the constitutional challenge raised for the first time on appeal.

A tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order to the Divisional Court, claiming the Board failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing to grant an adjournment when he called on the morning of the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit and for failure to perfect.

The tenant then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the proper procedure was a motion to set aside or vary before a Divisional Court panel, but agreed to hear the matter as if such a motion had been properly brought.

The Court upheld the dismissal, finding the Board member reasonably exercised discretion in refusing the adjournment given the tenant's prior notice, failure to use available rescheduling procedures, pattern of requesting adjournments, and non-payment of rent.

An appeal concerning a freedom of religion challenge to the medical and legal criteria for determining death.

The appellant's substitute decision-makers sought to prevent the withdrawal of life support and to rescind a death certificate based on the appellant's religious belief that death occurs only when the heart stops beating, not upon total brain death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's conclusion that the claim could not succeed.

However, the court provided important guidance on the proper analytical approach to Charter rights and Charter values, clarifying that the appellant should have been presumed to be a Charter rights holder for purposes of the substantive analysis, and that the application judge erred in her methodology regarding freedom of religion analysis and Charter values application to the common law.

The appellants sought to develop land pursuant to an amended development agreement with the Town of Ajax.

The agreement contained repurchase terms that could be invoked if the developer failed to take reasonable steps to proceed with construction by a specified deadline, provided it was not awaiting comments or confirmation of approval on any application from the Town.

The Town terminated the agreement and exercised its repurchase rights, claiming the developer's revised site plan application was incomplete and the construction deadline had passed.

The trial judge found in favour of the Town.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in failing to apply the Planning Act's definition of a complete site plan and in conflating completeness with readiness for approval.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the site plan application was incomplete as a matter of contract interpretation because the developer had not submitted all requested materials and was not awaiting Town approval but rather the Town was awaiting responses from the developer.

The appellant was convicted of offences related to a home invasion robbery and appealed on the grounds of multiple alleged errors in the trial judge's instructions and charge to the jury.

The primary submissions concerned whether the Crown improperly invited jury speculation regarding a firearm discharge and whether an impermissible inference was drawn regarding the appellant's origin.

The Court of Appeal found the jury was properly instructed, the Crown's remarks were not improper, and the verdict was available on the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence by failing to recognize that denunciation and general deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for the offence and by concluding that the minimum sentence required under s. 85(3)(a) of the Criminal Code was grossly disproportionate.

The trial judge's declaration that s. 85(3)(a) was invalid was set aside.

The Court of Appeal substituted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, reduced by pre-trial bail conditions and pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in an effective sentence of 13 months less 38 days.

The appellant, Deltro Electric Ltd., appealed from an order requiring it to repay $2 million USD to the respondent, Potentia Renewables Inc., with a receiver appointed over its assets in the event of non-payment.

The dispute arose from a failed business relationship concerning a ground-mount solar project in Barbados.

The application judge found that Deltro had breached and repudiated its obligations under a Letter of Intent and Amendment to Letter of Intent, and that final approval of the project had not been obtained within the required timeframe.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the contractual documents, rejection of fresh evidence, and appointment of the receiver with limited liability provisions.

A non-party lawyer appealed an order requiring him to attend for examination as a witness in a motion pending before the Superior Court of Justice.

The lawyer was counsel of record for the City of Windsor.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the case management judge had properly applied the stringent test for ordering opposing counsel to be examined and had made no error warranting appellate intervention.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision granting the respondent commissions on the sale of two properties.

The motion judge found that the appellant Zaman had executed a valid buyer representation agreement and rejected his defenses based on dyslexia, alleged oral amendments, and failure to disclose commissions.

On appeal, the appellants argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because a counterclaim for negligence was inextricably intertwined with the claim.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the counterclaim was not inextricably intertwined with the claim and was premised on the validity of the buyer representation agreement itself.

The appellant husband appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to change custody, support, and equalization payments.

The motion judge found she had no jurisdiction to adjust the equalization payment, no jurisdiction to award spousal support where none was previously ordered, and required payment of outstanding costs before proceeding with the child support motion.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no mistake of fact or law and affirming the motion judge's conclusions regarding jurisdiction and the finality principles in family law.

The husband appealed the trial judge's determination regarding the wife's entitlement to compensatory spousal support, the attribution of income for child and spousal support purposes, the set-off of equalization against retroactive support, and the determination not to award limited term support.

The wife had cross-appealed on the basis of fresh evidence but withdrew the cross-appeal during submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on all issues.