Brown

The appellants, defendants in a proposed class action arising from the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest in Ottawa, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no reversible error in his conclusions that there were grounds to believe the plaintiffs' claims for private and public nuisance had substantial merit, that the defendants had no valid defence, and that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants' expression.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, a home builder and its owner, brought a defamation action against the respondent homeowners over negative social media posts following a renovation dispute.

The motion judge dismissed the action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the online reviews reflected a purely private dispute and did not relate to a matter of public interest.

The Court also held that the motion judge erred in her approach to the 'no valid defence' requirement and the public interest weighing exercise, concluding that the defamation action should be permitted to proceed.

The appellant appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that his confession, obtained during a 13-hour police interrogation using the Reid Technique, should have been excluded.

The appellant and an intervener argued for a new common law rule creating a rebuttable presumption of involuntariness for confessions elicited via the Reid Technique.

The Court of Appeal declined to amend the confessions rule, finding the existing framework sufficient.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by failing to assess the cumulative effect of the prolonged, aggressive questioning and by making a palpable and overriding error of fact in concluding the appellant had not fallen asleep during the interrogation.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding a former executive unpaid vacation pay, deferred bonuses, and the value of lost stock options.

The employer argued the motion judge erred in granting the relief, in finding that issue estoppel barred its just cause defence, and in determining the matter via summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence or his conclusion that the just cause defence was barred by issue estoppel following the earlier dismissal of the employer's counterclaim under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant, an 18-year-old Indigenous man, shot and killed his father and best friend, and attempted to kill his father's girlfriend while highly intoxicated.

Following a trial, he was convicted of two counts of second degree murder and one count of attempted murder.

The trial judge accepted a joint recommendation from counsel and imposed concurrent life sentences with an 18-year parole ineligibility period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal.

The Court held that the stringent Anthony-Cook test for departing from joint submissions does not apply to joint recommendations made after a contested trial.

Finding the 18-year period demonstrably unfit due to the trial judge's failure to properly weigh the appellant's youth, intoxication, immediate remorse, and the systemic impacts of colonization, the Court reduced the parole ineligibility period to 13 years.

The appellant tenant appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay over $1.1 million in alleged profits earned from a commercial sublease to the respondent landlord.

The motion judge had interpreted the lease to preclude the tenant from deducting the rent it paid for unusable open-air space on the sublet floor, and found the claim was governed by the 6-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's interpretation ignored the factual matrix and resulted in a commercial absurdity.

The tenant was entitled to deduct the full rent paid for the floor, meaning it incurred a $2.6 million loss, not a profit.

The Court also held that the obligation to remit profit was not 'rent', and therefore the 2-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied.

The respondents brought a medical malpractice action after the plaintiff suffered a severe brain injury from a cardiac arrest during a caesarean section.

The trial judge found the primary obstetrician (Dr. Padmore), the anesthesiologist (Dr. Jamensky), and the hospital liable for negligence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeals of Dr. Padmore and the hospital, finding the trial judge erred in his legal causation analysis regarding their respective pre-delivery acts and omissions.

The Court dismissed Dr. Jamensky's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that he breached the standard of care by prematurely converting the patient to a general anesthetic and that this negligence caused the cardiac arrest.

Dr. Jamensky was held solely liable for the agreed $12 million in damages.

The Crown appealed the Stage One and Stage Two decisions regarding the interpretation of the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior Treaties of 1850.

The trial judge found that the Treaties' augmentation clause imposed a mandatory obligation on the Crown to increase the perpetual annuities if the economic circumstances of the ceded territories warranted it, without a hard cap of $4 per person.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the Crown has an obligation under the honour of the Crown to diligently implement the augmentation promise and that its discretion is not unfettered.

The Court unanimously set aside the trial judge's finding of an ad hoc fiduciary duty and her specific remedial directives regarding a 'fair share' of net resource revenues.

The Court also unanimously dismissed the Crown's limitations defence.

The Court split on the standard of review for historical treaties and whether the trial judge made extricable errors of law in her interpretation, but the majority upheld her core interpretation of the augmentation clause.

The appellant mother travelled to Ontario from Dubai with her two children for a visit, but subsequently informed the respondent father that she would not return.

The father commenced proceedings in Ontario seeking a return order under s. 40 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under ss. 22 and 23 of the Act, ordered the children returned to Dubai, and dismissed the mother's constitutional challenges to s. 40(3).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the risk of serious harm under s. 23, and upholding the constitutionality of the return order provision under both division of powers and the Charter.