Charles William Hourigan

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on driving-related charges, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to hold a hearing regarding a temporary increase in restrictions on his liberty following an elopement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on public safety risk was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court declined to decide the restriction of liberty issue as it was moot, and refused to impose a general notice and hearing procedure on the Board.

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt and the subsequent penalty imposed for her failure to comply with a final order regarding the respondent father's access to their children.

The motion judge found multiple, wilful breaches of the order, relying heavily on text messages where the appellant explicitly denied the court's authority over her parenting decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the contempt finding or the penalty, which included fines for failing to attend a cooperative parenting program.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting it either could have been produced earlier or did not displace the motion judge's findings.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for killing his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued the Board failed to order the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not directing the hospital to grant him indirectly supervised passes without requiring his participation in structured programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the hospital needed the appellant to engage in structured programming to assess his risk to the community, and that no treatment impasse existed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he remained a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable, and that it erred in refusing to transfer him to a less secure hospital.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by the evidence of the treating psychiatrist and the appellant's history of violence.

The refusal to transfer was also reasonable given the hospital risk assessment indicating the appellant required better symptom control before moving to a less secure environment.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her action against the respondent university under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant sought to relitigate issues regarding her law school transcript that had been previously dismissed in civil and human rights proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the action was an abusive relitigation and barred by cause of action estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to quash the defendant's appeal from a timetabling endorsement in a mortgage enforcement proceeding.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction because the endorsement was an interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the appeal frivolous and completely devoid of merit, as the endorsement did not determine any substantive rights.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a motion judge's order that dismissed his request for an extension of time to perfect his appeal.

The motion judge had noted the appellant previously missed an extended deadline, the appeal lacked merit, and the appellant's pleadings had been struck below.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the motion with costs.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The respondent on appeal was awarded partial indemnity costs in the amount of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed an order confirming emergency orders issued by the municipality's Chief Building Official under the Building Code Act, which required the appellant to pay the costs of terminating an immediate danger posed by an exposed wall.

The appellant argued the application judge failed to consider equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not raised the issue of equitable set-off before the application judge and it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the new argument on appeal.

The respondents moved for an order under r. 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure granting them leave to examine the appellants' former lawyer regarding communications relating to the appeals.

The appellants had sought leave to file Supplementary Notices of Appeal, arguing the current appeals did not reflect their instructions to their former lawyers.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the instructions given to counsel were highly relevant to the appellants' motion and the respondents had moved promptly.

The appellant, a party under disability with the Public Guardian and Trustee appointed as his litigation guardian, filed a Notice of Appeal challenging a case management judge's order that stayed his action as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The respondents requested an order under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found the Notice of Appeal to be largely unintelligible and seeking relief the court could not grant, demonstrating the appellant's incapacity to represent himself.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous on its face.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents over $2 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by discharging the jury mid-trial, refusing a mistrial, mishandling evidence of CPP disability benefits, and excluding surveillance videos.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had ample basis to discharge the jury due to scheduling issues and late disclosure of an umbrella insurance policy.

While the surveillance videos should have been admitted, their exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice given their minimal probative value.

The appellant, a psychologist, was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against three male patients during relaxation therapy sessions.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by admitting formal admissions made by his counsel in prior disciplinary proceedings, by allowing the similar fact evidence of each complainant to be used across counts, and by failing to properly instruct the jury regarding potential collusion and adverse inferences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disciplinary admissions were properly admitted as admissions against interest, the similar fact evidence was correctly weighed for probative value versus prejudicial effect, and the jury instructions were adequate.

The appellant law firm appealed the quantum of legal fees approved by the application judge in a settlement for a plaintiff under a disability.

The application judge had reduced the firm's contingency fee from approximately $180,000 to $60,000, noting the lack of complexity, the absence of risk, and the disparity between the docketed time and the requested fee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's articulation or application of the relevant factors for fixing costs for a party under a disability.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's orders regarding prospective and retroactive spousal and child support, as well as the trial costs award.

The trial judge had imputed income to the respondent due to income fluctuations and denied retroactive support because the appellant's bankruptcy had relieved her of the tax debt that caused her financial hardship.

The Court of Appeal applied a deferential standard of review, finding no material error or serious misapprehension of the evidence by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent 24 months' notice and bonus entitlements for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the employment contract, resignation, and release in the context of a commercial share sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the motion judge's contractual interpretation, upholding the finding that the release of ESA rights was void, and affirming the 24-month notice period and bonus entitlement.

The appellant appealed the terms of an order setting aside a default judgment, which required him to pay $52,000 into court and pay costs.

The respondent moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to quash, finding that the terms did not finally dispose of the dispute between the parties and were therefore interlocutory orders from which no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking in 2008.

Over 11 years later, he was arrested in the United States for immigration violations and sought an extension of time to appeal his Canadian conviction, arguing his plea was uninformed regarding immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the 11-year delay excessive, the proposed ground of appeal weak, and that the applicant failed to establish that the justice of the case required granting the extension.

The appellant, convicted of second degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed the application on the public interest criterion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the grounds of appeal were weak and did not clearly surpass the not frivolous criterion.

Balancing the weak grounds, serious convictions, and lengthy sentence against the lack of flight risk and public safety concerns, the court concluded that the enforceability interest outweighed the reviewability interest, making detention necessary in the public interest.

The applicants, convicted of various firearms offences, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed the applications based on the public interest criterion.

The motion judge found no public safety concerns, noting neither applicant had a criminal record and both had complied with previous bail conditions.

The judge also determined that the grounds of appeal were arguable and that the applicants might serve their sentences before the appeals could be heard.

The applications for bail pending appeal were granted.