Charles William Hourigan

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought its trial costs.

The parties agreed on most amounts but disputed a $32,025 disbursement for environmental assessment reports prepared prior to the litigation for the purpose of a possible property acquisition.

The Court of Appeal denied the disbursement, holding that the reports were not commissioned in contemplation of litigation and their use at trial did not alter their nature as non-litigation work product.

Trial costs were fixed at $237,364.86.

The respondent was injured when he tripped over a motorcycle parked on a walkway between trailers at a campsite.

The appellant insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application judge found that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicle, satisfying the purpose test.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant father sought to relocate with his seven-year-old child from Kincardine to Whitby, relying on a notice provision in a consent order.

The motion judge held that a motion to change was required and dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the proposed move contradicted the schooling and access clauses of the order, necessitating a motion to change.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the father's concerns about the stigma of past false abuse allegations were foreseeable at the time of the original order.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering the return of a $2,000,000 deposit to the respondent purchaser after a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent fulfilled its contractual obligation to apply in good faith to assume existing mortgages before rejecting the terms offered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and his conclusion that a formal application would have been an exercise in futility.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearm offences following a high-risk takedown where police seized two loaded handguns.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by dismissing his Corbett application to exclude his prior firearms conviction, dismissing his stay application regarding a lost surveillance video, and improperly instructing the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised her discretion on the Corbett application given the defence's attack on police character, and correctly concluded the lost video did not amount to unacceptable negligence or a Charter breach.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $200,000 for breach of a factoring agreement that was not pleaded.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's finding that it was liable for intentional interference with economic relations and the award of $175,000 in damages at large to the appellants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the $200,000 judgment because the claim was not pleaded and would have been statute-barred.

The Court dismissed the cross-appeal, upholding the finding of intentional interference with economic relations and the damages at large award, and refused to allow the respondent to raise equitable set-off for the first time on appeal.

The appellants commenced an action in Ontario alleging mismanagement of their investment accounts by their advisor and vicarious liability of the brokerage firm.

The brokerage firm successfully moved to stay the action based on a forum selection clause in the client account agreements requiring disputes to be litigated in British Columbia.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to show strong cause to depart from the forum selection clause, as they were sophisticated investors who had the opportunity to read the agreements, and Ontario law could be proven in British Columbia courts.

The appellant property owner appealed a summary judgment order finding it liable for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit after the respondent remediation company cleaned up a 20,000-litre canola oil spill on its property.

The appellant argued it received no direct benefit and that the respondent had no expectation of payment from it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant received a negative benefit by avoiding a potential remediation order from the Ministry of the Environment, and that the services were requested by an officer and director of the appellant.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay approximately $100,000 in real estate commission to the respondent brokerage.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in making credibility determinations without a trial and in finding the Buyer Representation Agreement had not been terminated.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment framework and her factual findings were solidly grounded in the evidence.

The moving party, previously declared a vexatious litigant, brought a motion before a panel of the Court of Appeal to set aside a single judge's decision dismissing his motion to extend the time to file notices of appeal.

The moving party had previously brought multiple unsuccessful motions for the same relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the matter was res judicata and the motion constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her objection to a Master's report that found her mortgage was a fraudulent conveyance and preference, and therefore void.

The appellant argued the respondent was estopped from challenging the mortgage due to delay and acquiescence, and that the delay gave rise to laches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent did not know the facts underlying the fraudulent mortgage until discovery, and that laches requires both delay and prejudice, which the appellant failed to establish.

The moving party brought a motion to determine whether the appellant required leave to appeal an order dismissing a claim for occupation rent against a receiver.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because the appeal directly involved property exceeding $10,000 in value.

The motion was dismissed, and the appeal was permitted to proceed without leave.

The appellant, found unfit to stand trial, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that rejected a joint submission without explicit prior notice.

The Board imposed a more restrictive disposition than proposed, citing the appellant's ongoing violent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's probing questions during the hearing provided adequate notice of its concerns regarding the joint submission, satisfying the requirements of procedural fairness.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board erred by departing from a joint submission without adequate notice and by admitting unredacted victim impact statements containing inadmissible material.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hearing did not proceed on the basis of a true joint submission, that adequate notice of the Board's concerns was given, and that the Board made no reviewable error in admitting the victim impact statements.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that his arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds once evidence obtained from an illegal police entry into a condominium was excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the totality of the remaining circumstances provided sufficient grounds for the arrest.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence and quashed the two-year probation order, as the Crown conceded it was illegal under s. 731(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant father brought a motion for interim access to his three-year-old child for a three-week block in Toronto, which was heard alongside his appeal of a custody and relocation order.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing it would interfere with the child's half-day nursery school attendance and conflict with a prior access order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that fostering a meaningful relationship with the non-custodial parent and his family outweighed the importance of nursery school attendance, and noting that the prior access order restricting access to one-week blocks was a nullity.

The appellant was convicted of possession of Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking after smuggling pills into a detention centre while serving an intermittent sentence.

She appealed her conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment, arguing the trial judge erred in finding she had the requisite intent and misapplied the W. (D.) test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable based on the quantity and packaging of the pills, and upheld the sentence as fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant father brought a second appeal regarding a trial judgment that awarded custody of a three-year-old child to the respondent mother and allowed her to relocate to England.

The first appeal judge upheld the trial judge's decisions on custody and relocation but remitted the final order back to the trial judge to correct errors and inconsistencies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred in remitting the matter, as the trial judge had properly settled the order and was functus officio.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the remitted order and restore the original trial order.

The appellant, a youthful first offender, was convicted of domestic violence offences and sentenced to 8 years and 4 months.

The trial judge awarded pre-disposition custody credit at a ratio of 1.25:1.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Summers, the appellant appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent, varying the pre-disposition custody credit to a ratio of 1.5:1, reducing the effective sentence from 60 months to 52 months.