Bradley W. Miller

The appellant, a male dancer at a strip club, was convicted of sexual assault of a female customer.

The trial judge found that the complainant did not consent to fellatio and vaginal intercourse that occurred in the VIP room.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the trial judge relied on behavioural assumptions and stereotypes about how a young woman would act in a strip club setting to determine that the complainant did not consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's credibility analysis was tainted by impermissible reliance on stereotypes and assumptions about female behaviour in a sexualized environment.

This appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute over the equalization of net family property and a costs award.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's treatment of promissory notes (debts owed by the appellant to his corporations) in calculating net family property under a marriage contract that excluded corporate assets.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal a substantial costs award of $490,000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision on both issues, finding no error in including the promissory notes as personal debts not excluded by the marriage contract, and finding the costs award was justified given the appellant's unreasonable litigation tactics.

The appellant, a young person, appealed their conviction for sexual assault and the sentence imposed.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in his credibility analysis by failing to consider inconsistencies in the complainant's account and by not considering the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, was not required to address every inconsistency, and correctly determined that there was no air of reality to the mistaken belief defence given the diametrically opposed versions of events presented by the parties.

The appellant was convicted of break and enter of a dwelling house and other offences based primarily on DNA evidence found in a glove discovered at the crime scene.

The Crown admitted in an agreed statement of fact that the appellant's DNA was found in the glove but called no expert evidence regarding DNA transfer characteristics or whether the appellant's DNA was the sole profile on the glove.

The Court of Appeal found the verdicts unreasonable, holding that the DNA evidence alone was incapable of bearing the burden of proving the appellant left the glove at the scene.

The convictions were set aside and acquittals entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his 40-month sentence.

He was self-represented at trial and argued that the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance, rendering the trial unfair.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and that the trial judge provided extensive assistance to the self-represented appellant.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the 40-month sentence fell within the appropriate range for aggravated assault given the appellant's criminal record.

Two consolidated appeals arising from a family law proceeding between parents concerning custody and access to their child.

The respondent appealed an order dismissing a recusal application against a judge, and the appellant appealed an order denying leave to amend pleadings to seek custody.

The court found the case had become a procedural morass characterized by lack of good faith efforts to resolve issues.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The court emphasized that the appellant had pursued indirect procedural tactics rather than direct routes of review, and that the custody issue had been finally determined by a subsequent order that was not appealed.

The appellant appealed a sentencing decision from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the appellant, who was self-represented, was deprived of a fair hearing because the trial judge failed to provide appropriate assistance to her as a self-represented party.

The appellate court found it was not in a position to make the necessary factual findings to conduct the appeal and therefore allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Ontario Court of Justice for a new sentencing hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the trial judge on January 10, 2018.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a Vetrovec warning regarding the evidence of a key Crown witness.

The appellant also contended that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the Crown and defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had effectively complied with the spirit of Vetrovec by carefully examining the evidence and considering both confirmatory aspects and frailties.

The court noted that a Vetrovec warning is discretionary and that counsel had agreed at trial that no such warning was necessary.

The court also rejected the argument regarding uneven scrutiny, noting that the appellant was essentially requesting that the court re-weigh evidence, which is the function of the trial judge.

The appellant appealed from the parenting schedule established by the trial judge following an 11-day trial.

The trial judge had ordered that the respondent have greater contact with their four-year-old daughter, including extended overnight visits during weekends and holidays.

The appellant contended that the trial judge erred in failing to follow the expert assessor's recommendations for a gradual increase in overnight and holiday access, and that the child was distressed by the current schedule.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence from a clinical psychologist.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error in principle.

The trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in crafting a reasonable parenting schedule that reflected the best interests of the child while accounting for the toxic relationship between the parties.

The appellant appealed a committal order for extradition to the United States to stand trial for Internet luring and child exploitation offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal order and dismissed the application for judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

The majority found that the search warrants were valid, that the extradition judge did not err in applying the disclosure test, and that the Minister reasonably exercised her discretion in ordering surrender.

The dissent argued that the extradition judge applied the wrong disclosure test and exercised discretion unreasonably, rendering the hearing unfair.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision rendered by the motion judge in favour of the respondent on claims for breach of contract and breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in finding no genuine issue requiring trial, contending that the case turned on credibility findings that required cross-examination or examination for discovery, which were unavailable under the simplified procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed her conviction for fraud exceeding $5,000 arising from misrepresentations related to Ontario Works social benefits.

The appellant initially qualified for benefits as a sole-support parent and was obligated to report changes in income, assets, or living circumstances.

The Crown alleged the appellant failed to disclose a change of residence and a change in her benefit unit status.

The trial judge convicted the appellant without making clear findings on whether she was co-habiting with Mr. Weedmark and misapprehended evidence regarding the tenancy agreement.

The Court of Appeal found these errors were material to the verdict and allowed the appeal.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 26, 2017 and March 6, 2018.

The appellants were unsuccessful in their appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant sought review of a motion judge's order denying an extension of time to appeal from a summary judgment decision.

The motion judge applied the correct legal test, considering delay, reasons for delay, potential merit of the appeal, and the interests of justice.

Finding no apparent merit to the appeal on the limitation period issue and no basis to impugn the lower court's decision, the motion judge denied the extension.

The appellate panel upheld this decision.

The appellant appealed his conviction for obtaining credit by false pretences and inducing a person to act on a false document.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's finding that the mortgage broker could have been naive was inconsistent with a finding of fraudulent conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the trial judge's determination that the appellant actively participated in drafting false rental agreements and submitted them knowing they were false was sufficient to ground the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was acquitted of conspiracy to commit human smuggling but convicted of two counts of manslaughter by criminal negligence arising from an incident where he transported three Indian nationals on a Sea-Doo across the St. Lawrence River without life jackets, resulting in the capsizing of the vessel and the deaths of two passengers.

The Federal Crown appealed the acquittal on the conspiracy charge, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding the accused's statement and the surviving passenger's hearsay statements.

The accused appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge misstated the mens rea test and failed to consider all relevant circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.

An appeal from the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated July 18, 2018, regarding the detention of an individual with a major mental illness.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was necessary.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's application of the legal test for assessing ongoing risk or in its determination that detention was the appropriate disposition given the appellant's mental condition, history of non-compliance with medication, substance abuse, and prior violent conduct.

The appellant was convicted at trial of producing methamphetamine and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking following a fire at an industrial complex containing a clandestine drug lab.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the appellant's fingerprint on a pop can found in the unit and a cell phone found in the lab that the trial judge concluded belonged to the appellant.

The phone contained incriminating evidence including photographs of equipment used in methamphetamine production.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: improper reliance on certified court documents to link him to the phone, misapprehension of evidence regarding photographs on the phone, and that the conviction on the possession for trafficking count was unreasonable or insufficiently reasoned.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's reasoning and that the circumstantial evidence cumulatively supported the convictions beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and sexual interference.

The trial judge found that the appellant had sexually assaulted a 15-year-old complainant at a property he owned, holding a knife to her throat and forcing her to perform fellatio.

The appellant's defence relied on a medical condition affecting his genitals and a theory of innocent secondary transfer of semen.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, treatment of DNA evidence, or application of the collateral fact rule.

The moving party sought a motion to review a decision dismissing her motion for an order exempting her from the requirement to sign an undertaking not to disseminate audio recordings of court proceedings.

She also sought permission to video record the motion to review hearing itself.

The court held that parties are not entitled to obtain and disseminate audio or video recordings of proceedings on their own terms.

The open courts principle does not automatically override statutory restrictions on recording.

The court dismissed the motion to review and awarded costs to the respondent London District Catholic School Board.