Christopher M. Speyer

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal court decision that had overturned the accused's conviction.

The appeal court had interfered with the trial judge's finding that a slight deviation from the recommended 7-day replacement schedule for the alcohol test solution did not affect the accuracy of the breath tests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the Criminal Code does not mandate a strict 7-day replacement schedule and the trial judge's finding of fact was amply supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for causing unnecessary suffering to a dog by choking it.

He argued that he was merely defending himself from unnecessary force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was an evidentiary basis for the trial judge to reject the self-defence claim and conclude the appellant caused unnecessary suffering.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred by rejecting a joint submission on sentence without explicitly giving counsel an opportunity to address it.

The Court of Appeal found that counsel had an opportunity during a break in proceedings.

The Court upheld the trial judge's decision, agreeing that the joint submission was grossly inadequate and that this was one of the rare cases where it was necessary to depart from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought costs following a trial and appeal.

Based on a settlement offer dated March 13, 2002, the appellant was entitled to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The Court of Appeal fixed the appellant's costs at trial at $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, noting that the requested fees exceeded trial counsel's actual billable rate.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

During the hearing, the Tribunal indicated it would only consider oral evidence and submissions, refusing to deal with matters contained in the documentary record.

The Divisional Court held that this ruling amounted to a judicial error and a denial of natural justice, as it ran the risk of excluding relevant documents.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Human Rights Commission dismissing her human rights complaint without a hearing.

The applicant alleged her former employer failed to accommodate her disability before terminating her employment.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review and found that the Commission acted within its jurisdiction and expertise.

The court concluded that the Commission's decision was supported by the evidentiary record, which indicated the employer had accommodated the applicant and that she was not interested in returning to her previous employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant student was required to withdraw from his course of studies at the respondent college.

He appealed the decision but received disclosure of the case against him only three days before the hearing.

His requests for a short adjournment to prepare a response were denied.

The Divisional Court held that the refusal to grant an adjournment in these circumstances was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The decisions of the appeal panel and the Ombudsman were quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly constituted appeal panel.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer his grievance to binding arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied the patent unreasonableness standard of review, noting the Board's specialized expertise and the strong privative clauses in the Act.

The Court found the Board's decision was reasonable, thoughtful, and supported by the record, concluding the union acted reasonably and not in bad faith.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant accepted a commissioned sales position with the respondent and resigned from his previous job.

After starting work, he was required to sign a 'Solicitor's Agreement' that severely restricted his entitlement to commissions.

The appellant later resigned and sued for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the agreement enforceable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Solicitor's Agreement was an amendment to the employment contract and was unenforceable for lack of consideration, as the employer did not provide anything of value, such as increased job security, in exchange for the employee signing it.

The appellant was awarded his unpaid commissions.

The appellants failed to appear for their appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs of $2,000 to the respondent bank.

The moving party sought to set aside an order of the Chief Justice of Ontario, which had dismissed his motion to set aside a deputy registrar's order.

Ultimately, the moving party sought to re-open a summary judgment granted by the Superior Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, alleging newly discovered evidence of fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a motion to set aside a Superior Court order based on fresh evidence of fraud, and that such a motion must be brought in the Superior Court.

The appellant physician appealed an order requiring him to cooperate with a peer assessment directed by the College's Quality Assessment Committee.

He attempted to argue that the Complaints Committee erred in its initial assessment, which the Court of Appeal held was an improper collateral attack on a decision not before the court.

The appeal and a motion to admit fresh evidence were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs award.

The Court of Appeal declined to grant leave, regardless of which test for granting leave applied.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $1,173,960 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in punitive damages for breach of a construction management contract.

The respondent had worked for 17 months without pay before being abruptly terminated on the eve of his entitlement to substantial compensation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the contract to assess damages, properly declined to consider mitigation as it was not pleaded, and appropriately awarded punitive damages given the appellant's reprehensible conduct.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding them liable for conversion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that it was a clear case of conversion.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant failed to comply with an order to post $15,000 as security for costs before the appeal hearing.

The court noted a long pattern of non-payment of spousal and child support, with arrears exceeding $27,000.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to repay $47,000 improperly withdrawn from a letter of credit and $7,786.56 for cleaning and grading costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for an alleged overpayment of interest on a vendor take-back mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the letter of credit draw, issue estoppel, or the mortgage interest payments.