Bradley W. Miller

The appellant claimed an interest in the increase in equity in the respondent's home during their cohabitation, seeking a share of a $410,000 increase.

The trial judge dismissed the action and awarded costs to the respondent.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal in part, awarding the appellant $5,000 plus interest, representing a one-time mortgage contribution.

The appeal addressed primarily a constructive trust claim, on which the respondent was successful on the main issue.

The respondent, Trade Capital Finance Corp., alleged it was defrauded of approximately $6.5 million in a scheme involving the purchase of fictitious accounts receivable.

The majority of lost funds were deposited into bank accounts owned by the appellant, The Cash House Inc., a financial services company.

Trade Capital obtained a Mareva Order freezing assets and ordering financial disclosure.

The appellants were found in contempt for intentionally operating Cash House through a bank account owned by a related entity (2454904 Ontario Inc.) in violation of the Mareva Order, and for failing to produce required documents.

The motion judge sentenced Osman Khan to 90 days imprisonment and struck Cash House's statement of defence and crossclaim.

The appellants appealed, arguing the Mareva Order was ambiguous and that the sanctions were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Mareva Order sufficiently clear and the sanctions justified by the appellants' persistent non-compliance.

The appellant challenged an order permitting an FBI "clean team" to examine seized computer servers and prepare a report to assist the court in determining what material should be sent to the United States under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The servers were seized pursuant to a valid search warrant in connection with an investigation into alleged copyright infringement.

The court held that while the application judge had jurisdiction under section 15(2) of the Act to make such an order, the application judge erred in failing to consider the effect on the appearance of fairness and judicial impartiality of having an entity closely associated with one of the adversaries examine the material and prepare the report.

The court set aside the order and held that any entity retained to assist the judge should be independent of the interested parties, absent compelling circumstances such as unique expertise.

Minority shareholders appealed a trial judgment finding oppressive conduct by majority shareholders in a real estate development company.

The trial judge found that the majority had issued too many shares in response to cash calls when the minority shareholder refused to participate, thereby diluting the minority's ownership interest.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the shareholders' agreement and the calculation of share dilution, with minor adjustments to the valuation calculations.

The court also set aside punitive damages against one defendant due to inadequate notice in the pleadings, and dismissed the appellants' costs appeal.

Appeal from conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum correcting an error in the prohibition order.

The trial judge had failed to specify the duration of the prohibition order.

The Court varied the order to impose a 15-year term to the prohibition order as a whole, in accordance with the appellant's request and the Crown's concession.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of sexual assault and related charges involving alleged sexual abuse of his stepson when the victim was nine or ten years old.

The victim reported the allegations approximately eight years later.

The appellant appealed his convictions on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable and that the trial judge erred in various aspects of his credibility assessment and reasoning.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the verdicts were reasonable, the trial judge properly assessed credibility, and there were no errors in the application of the relevant legal principles.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellant appealed a decision by Justice Douglas K. Gray dated April 14, 2016.

The Court of Appeal determined that this was not a case warranting substantial indemnity costs, as both parties had pursued and defended their positions vigorously.

The respondents claimed partial indemnity costs of $17,354.08, but the court awarded costs to the respondents in the reduced amount of $13,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant was convicted of multiple sexual offences against his six-year-old son and sentenced to five years imprisonment with ancillary prohibition orders.

He appealed against conviction and sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal aspects of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no evidence of collusion between the complainant and his mother and no error in the admission of similar fact evidence regarding the appellant's prior conviction for sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl.

The Court granted a limited sentence appeal, varying the prohibition order by deleting a provision regarding communication with persons under 16 and reducing a lifetime proximity ban to 15 years, following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. K.R.J.

On appeal from a trial judgment finding the municipal defendants liable for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident on a rural road during winter conditions.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's interpretation and application of the Municipal Act, 2001 duty to clear roads of snow and ice.

The trial judge found the road in a state of non-repair and held the municipality failed to take reasonable steps to prevent or correct the condition.

The appellants argued the trial judge applied an unreasonably high standard of maintenance for a Class 4 rural road, erred in requiring the application of straight salt rather than sand/salt mixture, and excluded relevant evidence regarding financial costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, set aside the liability findings, and ordered a new trial on liability issues while upholding the damages assessment.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 20 months imposed by the trial judge for his involvement in a commercial conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge properly considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the commercial nature of the enterprise and the appellant's level of involvement.

The court also found that the trial judge adequately considered the parity principle in distinguishing the appellant's sentence from that of a co-conspirator who received 30 months.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 5, 2016.

The appellant challenged the Board's order regarding his detention and conditions.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's conduct troubling but close to the threshold for satisfying the "significant threat to the safety of the public" requirement.

The Court upheld the Board's order but directed that on the next review, all possibilities including conditional discharge be fully addressed, noting the appellant's prior successful functioning on conditions for approximately four years.

Appeal from a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice following a conviction.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of whether section 8 Charter rights were breached during a search.

The trial judge found that a level 3 search was reasonable except for the "squat and cough" procedure, which was deemed unreasonable.

The trial judge reduced the sentence as a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing systemic deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in her findings and determining that the sentence reduction was an appropriate remedy for the breach.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining a detention order.

The appellant argued the Board erred in concluding she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that detention remained the least restrictive measure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding the expert evidence established the appellant suffered from schizophrenia with persistent delusional beliefs related to the index offense (assault of her mother), lacked insight into her condition, and would discontinue treatment if discharged.

Although the appellant had been placed in supervised community accommodation since the appeal was filed, the court found this did not undermine the Board's conclusion that conditional discharge would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The detention order was necessary to enable the hospital to approve and supervise the appellant's community placement.

The appellant appealed his conviction on counts one and two, as well as the sentence imposed.

The trial judge committed two errors: first, using CPIC records to contradict the appellant's testimony about his name usage, which had no logical relevance; and second, using the appellant's rejected and fabricated evidence as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The Court of Appeal found the second error to be fatal and quashed the convictions on counts one and two, ordering a new trial.

The conviction on count three (breach of probation) was upheld with a concurrent sentence of 120 days, and the firearm prohibition was set aside while the DNA order was maintained.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Ontario Court of Justice on March 8, 2016.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly assessed the circumstantial evidence and that no error in law or clear and palpable factual error was demonstrated.

The court held that the failure to articulate alternative factual scenarios in the reasons for judgment does not equate to a failure to consider them.

The reasons were found to be adequate as the judge reviewed the evidence and made the basis for his finding clear.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial judge had misunderstood the position of defence counsel regarding the appropriate sentence, resulting in a sentence longer than that requested by either Crown or defence.

The Court of Appeal received fresh evidence on consent to clarify defence counsel's position and adjusted the sentence to an effective three years, with credit for 533 days of presentence custody.

The sentence was varied to consist of 562 days for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, with concurrent sentences on related drug and firearm offences.

The appellant was entitled to a reformatory sentence (less than two years) and arrangements were made to transfer him from the penitentiary in British Columbia to the reformatory system in Ontario.

The appellants, Vice Media Canada Inc. and journalist Ben Makuch, appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a production order requiring them to produce documents relating to their communications with Farah Shirdon, a Canadian resident who had joined ISIS and was charged with terrorism offences.

The appellants also sought to unseal the affidavit supporting the production order and challenged a non-publication order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the production order, finding that the Garofoli standard of review applied and that the issuing judge reasonably balanced the competing interests of law enforcement and freedom of the press.

The court allowed the appeal in part regarding the sealing order, directing that most material be unsealed with limited redactions.

The court also addressed the non-publication order, finding it a valid alternative to sealing but noting that certain portions of the affidavit may not require the publication ban.

An employee who was employed as CEO and president for nine years brought an appeal challenging the trial judge's finding that the employer's refusal to pay a bonus on profits from the sale of real estate investments did not constitute constructive dismissal, despite breaching the employment contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the breach did not substantially alter an essential term of the employment contract and did not evince an intention by the employer to no longer be bound by the contract.

The court applied the two-branch test from Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, finding that neither branch was satisfied on the facts.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the 33-month sentence as fit, finding no error in principle regarding the trial judge's characterization of the sentencing range.

However, the court varied the sentence by modifying the firearms prohibition from a lifetime ban under s. 109(2) to a ten-year ban, considering the appellant's youth and absence of prior firearm misuse.

The Crown appealed a sentencing judge's decision dismissing its application to designate the respondent as a dangerous offender under section 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge instead designated the respondent as a long-term offender and imposed a determinate sentence of two years less one day, followed by a five-year long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, finding that there was sufficient evidence of treatability and a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the respondent's risk in the community through a graduated release plan involving psychiatric treatment and community supervision.