Catherine V. Weiler

The appellant appealed his convictions for fraud over $5,000 and possession of property obtained by crime exceeding $5,000.

The trial judge found that the appellant became wilfully blind to the fraudulent nature of funds deposited into his business account.

The appellant claimed he was unaware of the fraud and that the funds originated from identity theft of a third party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the trial judge properly applied the doctrine of wilful blindness based on inherently suspicious circumstances and cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the pattern of deposits, frequent cash withdrawals, and purchases unrelated to any legitimate business purpose.

The appellant was convicted of three counts: intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire to his dwelling house knowing it was inhabited or occupied (s. 433(a)), intentionally or recklessly causing damage by fire that seriously threatened the safety and property of residents in proximity (s. 434.1), and wilfully endangering his dog (s. 445(1)(a)).

The trial judge found the appellant deliberately set a fire by igniting paper under a television.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal on counts one and four, quashing those convictions, while upholding the conviction on count two.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated October 2, 2017.

The appellant, declared not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, challenged three aspects of the Board's decision: (1) the finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety; (2) the Board's failure to consider a conditional discharge; and (3) the wording of condition 4(f) of the disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's findings on the first two issues but amended condition 4(f) to clarify the Board's intention regarding restrictions on the appellant's attendance at locations where children under 14 are present.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board that imposed a hybrid detention order requiring detention at the Secure Forensic Unit of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit or allow community residence in approved accommodation.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for threatening others with a knife in 2011, had been living in the community under conditional discharge but experienced significant deterioration in 2017 due to medication non-compliance and substance use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's findings of significant threat and the necessity of the detention order were amply supported by evidence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him to remain a significant threat to public safety and ordered a conditional discharge with monthly reporting requirements.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the Board's conclusion was reasonable based on evidence that the appellant intended to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged, had persistent persecutory delusions, and had a history of cannabis use that exacerbated his mental condition.

The court found it reasonable for the Board to conclude that absolute discharge would likely result in medication cessation, decompensation, and increased risk of threatening behaviour.

The law firm Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP (CMB) brought a motion seeking an order to be appointed as representative counsel for approximately 3,000 investors in the receivership of Crystal Wealth Management Systems Inc. The court-appointed Receiver, Grant Thornton Limited, and the Ontario Securities Commission opposed the motion, arguing that it would be duplicative of the Receiver's role and would result in unnecessary professional fees.

The court dismissed CMB's motion, finding that the Receiver was already adequately protecting and advancing the investors' interests, and that appointing representative counsel would add unnecessary expense without good reason.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud and misrepresentation by selling nearly $19 million in securities without disclosing a highly critical financial report.

The Commission ordered significant administrative penalties and disgorgement of over $16.5 million.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the Commission's findings, concluding that the failure to disclose the report while continuing to sell securities was objectively dishonest.

The Court also affirmed that reliance is not required for a misrepresentation finding under the Securities Act and that the Commission has broad public interest jurisdiction to order disgorgement of all funds raised through non-compliance, even if not personally retained by the wrongdoers.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's (OSC) decisions on the merits and sanctions regarding their conduct in the investment industry.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the OSC's decisions is reasonableness, except for procedural fairness.

The court found that the OSC reasonably excluded fresh evidence, reasonably upheld the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's (IIROC) findings on the merits, and conducted a procedurally fair fresh sanctions hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent sought costs following a one-day appeal.

The court noted the costs claimed were well beyond the usual range and that the respondent's motion to quash the appeal had been dismissed.

Taking into account the complexity, importance of the issues, amount at issue, and the result achieved, the court fixed costs awarded to the respondent at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Dell for allegedly defective notebook computers.

Dell sought to stay the action based on a mandatory arbitration clause in its standard-form sales agreement.

The motion judge refused the stay and certified the class action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, which invalidates mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, applied to the claim because the computers failed after the Act came into force.

The Court also refused to grant a partial stay for non-consumer claims, as doing so would lead to inefficiency and a multiplicity of proceedings.