Charles William Hourigan

The appellant, a dual-status offender found not criminally responsible (NCR) and serving two life sentences for sexual offences, appealed conditions imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The Board ordered his continued detention at a secure forensic psychiatric facility with conditions restricting his unmonitored use of email and requiring staff escorts for community access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the conditions were reasonable and did not violate the appellant's section 8 Charter rights or the Mental Health Act, as an NCR detainee has a significantly diminished expectation of privacy in a secure institutional setting.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing identification evidence, resolving inconsistencies regarding the colour of his pants, and applying the burden of proof under W. (D.).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the investigating officer's identification was corroborated by ample circumstantial evidence and that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and the dangers of uncorroborated identification evidence.

The court-appointed receiver appealed a motion judge's decision denying $30,000 in receiver fees and $20,000 in legal costs.

These fees were incurred when the receiver brought an unsuccessful motion to cancel an approved auction process in favour of a private sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while a receiver's business decisions are owed deference, the receiver still bears the burden of proving its fees are fair and reasonable.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the receiver's motion to abort the auction was ill-considered and that safeguarding the integrity of the sale process was paramount.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claims.

The underlying dispute involved a subrogated claim by the appellant's insurer against the respondents, who were contractors on a diamond mine project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contracts required the appellant to obtain insurance for the benefit of its contractors and included a waiver of subrogation.

Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court held that the appellant had waived liability for losses covered by the policy, thereby extinguishing the insurer's right of subrogation.

The appellant appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that dismissed her proposed class action claims for constructive and common law fraud against the respondent trustees.

The motion judge found the claims were released by a CCAA settlement and were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant had all material facts necessary to discover her claim when the Monitor's 39th report was issued in February 2010.

Because she issued her notice of action more than two years later in August 2012, the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

After the insurer terminated her benefits, she signed a full and final release in exchange for a lump sum.

She later sued the insurer for breach of contract, bad faith, and mental distress without first returning the settlement funds or proceeding to mandatory mediation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing her action, confirming that her claims were 'in respect of' statutory accident benefits and therefore subject to the mandatory mediation scheme under the Insurance Act.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against young children and sentenced to four years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender, leaving the public interest as the sole issue.

The Court of Appeal found the applicant's appeal grounds to be weak, particularly his arguments regarding the trial judge's credibility findings and use of prior consistent statements.

Balancing the weak appeal against the serious nature of the offences and the lengthy sentence, the court concluded that the public interest favoured immediate enforcement of the sentence.

The application for judicial interim release was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order granting the respondent employment agency's motion for summary judgment and dismissing her claim.

The motion judge found no evidence that the agency was contractually obliged to forward her application for a specific position.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the claim was based on bare allegations.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay costs of $4,500.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for past and future loss of income and earning capacity to the respondent following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by making an award based on ownership income without proper financial statements, a business valuation, or a specific formula.

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's allowance of a per quod claim by the respondent's corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's assessment of loss of earning capacity was reasonable and owed deference.

The court also upheld the trial judge's factual finding of an employer-employee relationship supporting the per quod claim.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, uttering a death threat, and choking, as well as his 4.5-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge should have recused himself for having presided over a prior bail review, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of the W.(D.) framework.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 4.5-year term was fit given the violence, threats, and the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant condominium corporation sought to recover common expense arrears from a defaulting unit owner.

Having failed to register a certificate of lien within the statutory three-month period, the appellant lost its priority over the respondent mortgagee.

The appellant applied under s. 134 of the Condominium Act, arguing the unpaid common expenses constituted damages that could be added to the common expenses, thereby reviving its priority lien.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that classifying unpaid common expenses as damages under s. 134 is contrary to the legislative purpose, scheme, and plain language of the Act, which balances the rights of condominium corporations and mortgagees.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order refusing to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of his action for delay.

The motion judge rejected the hearsay evidence of the appellant's solicitor regarding the delay and found no evidence establishing an absence of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's discretionary decision was free of error and that the solicitor's affidavit failed to comply with Rule 39.01(4) by omitting the source of information and belief.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim.

The motion judge granted summary judgment because the respondents tendered expert reports showing no breach of the standard of care, and the appellants failed to file any contradicting expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that where an expert's report is not filed in a malpractice claim, the court can infer the party is unable to obtain one, and the claim cannot succeed against uncontradicted expert evidence.

Following a successful appeal in a complex tax case, the appellant sought costs of the trial and appeal totaling over $1.3 million.

The respondent agreed costs should follow the event but argued the amounts were excessive.

The Court of Appeal declined to apply a 25% bump-up for a non-Rule 49 settlement offer, noting the respondent's obligation to protect the public purse in a test case.

The Court awarded the appellant costs of the appeal and trial fixed at $925,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to stay Ontario family law proceedings regarding custody of the parties' child.

The mother had moved from Indiana to Ontario while pregnant, and the child was born in Ontario.

The Indiana court had previously granted the father custody of the unborn child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under s. 22 of the Children's Law Reform Act, as the child was physically present in Ontario, substantial evidence was available there, and the balance of convenience favoured Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice declining to entertain its s. 24(1) Charter application based on post-trial delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion, as the appellant had already raised the s. 11(b) Charter issue in an appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court under the Provincial Offences Act.

The defendant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against a geotechnical consultant.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim after finding that the plaintiff's counsel made admissions during the hearing that the plaintiff had no claim against the consultant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error because counsel's statements were qualified and did not constitute a binding admission that no claim existed.

The dismissal of the third and fourth party claims was set aside.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing stolen vehicles, arguing the trial judge's rejection of his credibility was unreasonable and that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof by stating his explanations to police could not reasonably be true.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the credibility assessment was open to the trial judge and that the impugned statement related to the doctrine of recent possession, which the trial judge ultimately did not rely upon to find guilt.

The appellant appealed a threshold ruling and costs order made by the trial judge in a motor vehicle accident action.

The appellant abandoned the appeal of the threshold ruling but argued the trial judge erred in departing from the usual costs consequences after the plaintiff obtained a judgment less favourable than the appellant's offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the trial judge's departure from the rule.

The Court set aside the order of no costs post-offer and awarded the appellant $70,000 in costs, to be set off against the $135,000 awarded to the respondent for pre-offer costs.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that the Board's finding that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

Alternatively, he argued the Board erred in failing to grant a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the Board's conclusion regarding the threat to public safety.

The Court also held that a conditional discharge was unavailable because the appellant required supervised housing approved by the person in charge.