Bradley W. Miller

Appeal of a motion judge's order terminating indefinite spousal support after 22 years.

The respondent sought termination in anticipation of retirement, while the appellant sought an increase to $15,000 per month.

The motion judge found a material change in circumstances based on the appellant's failure to return to the workforce despite having marketable skills and professional qualifications.

The motion judge terminated support effective October 5, 2016, and awarded costs of $50,000 against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the termination, finding no error in principle and dismissing all grounds of appeal.

On appeal from a trial judgment involving an oil tank leak at a residential property.

The trial judge found Thompson Fuels negligent for failing to conduct required comprehensive inspections and water testing of fuel oil tanks, but found the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) not liable.

The plaintiff was found 60% contributorily negligent and Thompson Fuels 40% liable.

The appellate court upheld the trial judgment with one adjustment regarding betterment related to a line of credit.

The court addressed complex issues including the enforceability of exclusion clauses in consumer contracts, the application of regulatory obligations to civil liability, Pierringer agreements, and the calculation of damages in environmental contamination cases.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine after returning from Jamaica with approximately three kilograms of cocaine concealed in her suitcase.

The sole issue at trial was knowledge—whether the appellant knew the controlled substance was in her suitcase.

The appellant raised multiple grounds of appeal, including allegations that the Crown's closing address improperly invited speculation, that the trial judge's charge was deficient regarding good character evidence and the element of knowledge, and that the jury was left with an unbalanced view of the case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the Crown's submissions were supported by circumstantial evidence, that the charge adequately addressed the permissible uses of character evidence in context, and that the jury received proper instructions on the burden and standard of proof.

An employee of a daycare facility operated by the appellant municipality sustained a workplace injury from a slip and fall on a wet floor.

The municipality leased the daycare space from the respondent school board.

The school board was sued and brought a third party claim against the municipality, seeking a declaration that the municipality must defend and indemnify it under the terms of their commercial lease.

The motion judge ordered the municipality to defend and indemnify the school board.

On appeal, the municipality challenged the interpretation of the lease provisions governing insurance obligations and indemnification.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the municipality's obligation to maintain comprehensive general liability insurance constituted an assumption of the relevant risk of loss, and that the lease provisions, read together, clearly allocated the risk to the municipality.

The appellants appealed a contempt sentencing order from the Superior Court.

The respondent had brought an action claiming monies advanced to the appellants were not properly disbursed and that the appellants lacked a proper accounting system.

An interim order required the appellants to account for monies received, disclose documents to an appointed accounting firm, and pay unpaid accounts.

The appellants were found in contempt for failing to comply with the accounting and disclosure requirements.

On appeal, the appellants did not contest the contempt finding but challenged the sentencing as based on an erroneous finding that they had not purged their contempt and as disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred in refusing to admit fresh evidence regarding purge of contempt, and that the sentence was disproportionate.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering rescission of an asset purchase agreement.

The trial judge found that the appellant made fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations regarding defects in the building that were known at the time of closing.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's submissions that the trial judge made extricable legal errors in contract interpretation or that the interpretation was commercially unreasonable.

The court found no palpable and overriding errors or inadequacy of reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants sought to overturn a trial judgment dated February 28, 2018 by advancing arguments that had been rejected by the trial judge and by challenging his credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the entitlement to deposits in a real estate transaction.

The application judge had determined that the respondents were prima facie entitled to the deposits based on the written contracts.

The appellants argued the application should have been converted to an action and raised claims for relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the application was properly authorized under the Rules of Civil Procedure, that there were no material facts in dispute, and that the deposits were true deposits with no evidence of disproportionality or unconscionability.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarded by the trial judge in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the award of damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing an application on the basis that the limitation period had expired.

The appellant argued that the application judge should have dismissed the application on the alternative ground that the claim was improperly constituted as an application rather than an action.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was from the judgment, not the reasons, and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were fixed at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants, current and former uniform members of the Waterloo Regional Police Service, appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing their proposed class action for want of jurisdiction and denying certification.

The appellants alleged systemic gender-based workplace discrimination and harassment, including breach of Charter rights and breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellants' claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of labour arbitrators under the Police Services Act and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The court noted that the collective agreement permits group grievances and arbitrators possess broad remedial powers.

The appellant was convicted at trial on three counts of trafficking in fentanyl and three counts of knowingly using a forged document.

The charges related to his alleged participation in a scheme to obtain and use forged prescriptions for fentanyl patches.

The central issue at trial was identity—whether the appellant himself attended at the pharmacy to have the prescription filled or whether someone falsely presented himself as the appellant.

The trial judge accepted the evidence of a co-conspirator that the appellant participated in the scheme and rejected the appellant's claim that his health card had been lost or stolen.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's failure to assist him as a self-represented accused and claimed misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial was fair but allowed the appeal with respect to one trafficking count where there was insufficient evidence.

The appellant, Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice striking its claim in negligence for pure economic loss against the respondent, The Attorney General of Canada.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that Niagara College did not have a proximate relationship with Immigration Canada, and upheld the decision to strike the negligence claim without leave to amend.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought to reopen her appeal after it was dismissed for failure to perfect the appeal by the court-ordered deadline of August 31, 2018.

The applicant had attempted to file materials on the deadline date but they were inadequate, lacking necessary components and a transcript.

The materials were not properly filed until January 15, 2019, well after the appeal had been dismissed by the Registrar.

The court found no basis to reopen the appeal, noting the applicant's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal and the absence of merit in the underlying appeal, which sought to review a trial judge's discretionary decision to issue a bench warrant.

The appellant appealed his conviction for armed robbery and related offences, arguing that the trial judge failed to address a suggestion that a police officer may have condoned the complainant lying in his statement to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the suggestion was not the only interpretation of the evidence and that the trial judge properly addressed inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The court also upheld the sentence of eight years less two years' credit for pre-sentence custody as fit, but granted leave to appeal sentence and varied it only to strike the victim fine surcharge in light of R. v. Boudreault.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at the General Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible for assault and robbery offences committed in 2013 near Sudbury.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing he posed no significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision to be reasonable given concerns about the appellant's drug use triggering psychotic decompensation and his lack of community living experience.

However, the court expressed concern that the appellant's inability to abstain from drug use had become an insurmountable barrier to obtaining privileges and suggested the Board consider crafting a disposition to facilitate community living experience in future reviews.

The appellant was convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life and assault against her 86-year-old mother.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of failing to provide necessaries based on leaving her mother on the porch for approximately one hour in freezing temperatures on November 26, 2007.

The appellant was also convicted of assault based on a neighbour's evidence of witnessing the appellant push her mother out the front door.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction for failing to provide necessaries and entering an acquittal, and setting aside the assault conviction and ordering a new trial.

The plaintiff, Randy Brown, sued the defendants for damages after a slip and fall on ice at their property.

The matter proceeded as an undefended trial.

The court found the defendants liable for failing to maintain safe premises, despite prior warnings.

However, the plaintiff was found contributorily negligent due to his awareness of the hazard.

Damages for general injury, past and future loss of income, and future costs of care and housekeeping were assessed, with reductions for a pre-existing condition and contributory negligence.

OHIP's subrogated claim and the plaintiff's costs were also awarded.

The appellant appealed from an order under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act that prohibited him and any company he controlled from instituting or continuing any proceedings in any court except by leave of a Superior Court judge.

The appellant raised both substantive and procedural grounds of appeal, including claims that he was denied natural justice by not being allowed to give viva voce evidence, call witnesses, or convert the application into an action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural error and no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual conclusions or legal analysis.

The appellant, Grant Zilney, appealed convictions for an indecent act (December 19, 2016) and for an indecent act and criminal harassment (May 1, 2017), as well as the sentence for the latter and the finding that his right to a trial without delay was not breached.

The court dismissed the appeal regarding the December 19, 2016 conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of defence evidence or corroboration.

However, the court found a reasonable apprehension of bias in the trial judge's comments during sentencing that "guilt was obvious" regarding the May 1, 2017 convictions.

Consequently, a new trial was ordered for the indecent act and criminal harassment charges related to Mary Smith.

The appeal on the s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial without delay was dismissed, with the court affirming that judicial reserve time does not count towards the Jordan ceiling for unreasonable delay, as it constitutes an exceptional circumstance.