Charles M. Campbell

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order and warrant of committal for civil contempt, which imposed seven months of house arrest, 24 months of probation, and 300 hours of community service for breaching a conditional sentence.

The appellant argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction and that the sentence was unduly harsh.

The Court of Appeal held that civil contempt is governed by Rule 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and while a judge may use s. 742 of the Criminal Code for guidance, they are not constrained by it.

The Court upheld the extension of the conditional sentence but set aside the 300 hours of community service as unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for defamation and awarding damages to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability and damages in favour of one respondent, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the law of justification, fair comment, qualified privilege, and malice.

The Court also upheld the liability and damages against one appellant in favour of the second respondent regarding untrue statements made to a reporter.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the appellant's wife, finding she was not jointly liable for her husband's defamatory statements as she did not participate in making them to the reporter.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a costs order of $131,000 awarded to the respondents following a successful motion to stay the action.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by relying too heavily on the hours spent and the costs grid, resulting in an award that was not fair and reasonable and exceeded the reasonable expectations of the parties.

The Court reduced the costs award to $67,500, emphasizing that the time claimed for preparation was excessive for a motion that was not complex.

The appellant appealed an order staying his Ontario contract action against the respondents on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and Florida was the most convenient forum.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by relying on a privileged letter, finding the agreement contained a Florida arbitration provision, and failing to consider the risk of a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the Muscutt test, the letter was not privileged, and the factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his defamation claim.

The motion judge had applied the test from Mantini and concluded that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the defamatory meaning attributed to them by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on comments made by the trial judge during a costs endorsement.

The trial proceeded undefended after defence counsel advised she was instructed not to attend.

The Court of Appeal found that the impugned comments, while unfortunate, were made after judgment was granted and in response to a request for solicitor and client costs, and tended to support rather than attack the defendant's interests.

The test for reasonable apprehension of bias was not met, and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that ordered them to pay $4,222 net to the respondents following a dispute over the construction of a custom home.

The appellants sought over $88,000 on appeal.

The respondents argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because the trial judgment was for less than $25,000.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that under the Courts of Justice Act, jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the judgment ordered, not the amount claimed on appeal.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.