Cronk

The Trustee in bankruptcy appealed the trial judge's refusal to set aside transactions arising from a settlement between an investor and a real estate developer.

The Trustee argued the payments and mortgages were transfers at undervalue, unjust preferences, fraudulent conveyances, oppressive, and an unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the settlement was supported by adequate consideration (forbearance from suit), the parties were at arm's length, and there was no intent to defraud creditors.

The investor's cross-appeal regarding a $471,000 payment found to be a fraudulent conveyance was also dismissed.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on drug trafficking charges, which followed the trial judge's exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to a finding of arbitrary detention under s. 9.

The trial judge had concluded that police lacked objectively reasonable grounds to arrest the respondent based on confidential informant tips and surveillance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by considering the informant information and police observations in isolation.

When viewed in totality, the informant information was sufficiently compelling and corroborated by police surveillance of multiple brief meetings in vehicles outside the respondent's residence to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The accused was acquitted of sexual offences involving two underage girls after the trial judge found he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain their ages under s. 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his application of the mistake of age defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly identified and applied the legal principles, and that it was open to him to conclude that a reasonable person would not have made further inquiries given the compelling indicia of age presented by the complainants.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for declaratory relief concerning her aunt's estate and the respondent's role under a power of attorney.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding no evidence of fraud or lack of capacity, and awarded $8,000 in costs against the appellant due to unsubstantiated allegations and unnecessarily lengthening the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's findings or costs award and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for minor assaults and detained at a minimum forensic unit.

Despite his ongoing marijuana use, he had no history of aggression while detained.

The Ontario Review Board ordered his transfer to a medium security unit to restrict his access to drugs and help him develop insight.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the transfer unreasonable because it was more restrictive of his liberty and there was no evidence linking his marijuana use to a risk to public safety while detained.

The appellant, representing Ontario grain farmers, applied under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a declaration interpreting a regulation that restricted the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The appellant argued the regulation was unworkable and sought an interpretation that would effectively delay its implementation.

The motion judge struck the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was not ambiguous and the appellant was improperly seeking to rewrite the regulation rather than resolve a genuine interpretive dispute.

The appellant was employed under a five-year fixed-term contract and was terminated without cause after 23 months.

The motion judge found the early termination clause unenforceable and awarded common law reasonable notice damages subject to mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where an employment contract is for a fixed term and lacks an enforceable early termination provision, the employee is entitled to the salary and benefits for the unexpired portion of the term.

Furthermore, the court held that there is no duty to mitigate damages arising from the early termination of a fixed-term contract.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision upholding a trust agreement that declared the appellant company's assets belonged to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's credibility findings regarding the agreement's execution.

However, the Court held that the motion judge erred by granting a certificate of pending litigation on his own initiative, as it was neither pleaded nor requested.

The appeal was allowed in part solely to delete the certificate of pending litigation, and dismissed in all other respects.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The tenant's business premises were destroyed by a fire caused by a contractor retained by the landlord.

The tenant's insurer paid the policy limits and brought a subrogated claim against the landlord for the remaining uninsured losses.

The commercial lease required the tenant to insure its property against fire and to name the landlord as an additional insured, but also contained a clause requiring the landlord to indemnify the tenant for damage caused by the landlord's negligence.

The Court of Appeal held that the tenant's covenant to insure constituted an assumption of the risk of fire damage, relieving the landlord of liability even for its own negligence.

The appeal was allowed and the tenant's action dismissed.

The appellant failed to comply with a security for costs order.

The respondent requested that the appeal be dismissed for non-compliance, and the appellant did not oppose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on consent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking her application for declaratory relief as an abuse of process.

The appellant alleged that State Farm wrongly transmitted her confidential medical information outside Ontario without consent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the application was duplicative of the appellant's pending action for statutory accident benefits and circumvented the comprehensive dispute resolution schemes under the Insurance Act and PIPEDA.

The appeal and a motion to adduce fresh evidence were dismissed.

The appellant appealed from judgments regarding valid mortgages on which he had been in default for over a year and a half.

He argued there was enough equity in the property to satisfy the debts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the orders below and noting that the equity in the property was irrelevant to the respondent's right to payment and to assert its rights under the security.

The appellant appealed a committal order made pursuant to section 49 of the Extradition Act.

As provided for in the bail order, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The applicant sought judicial review of a surrender order made by the Minister of Justice under the Extradition Act.

As provided for in the applicant's bail order, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for judicial review as abandoned.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and importing cocaine, but the jury could not reach a verdict on a trafficking charge.

During deliberations, the jury asked if a guilty verdict on importing required a guilty verdict on trafficking.

The trial judge answered 'no' without further explanation, contradicting his earlier instructions that the key issue for all charges was whether a specific transfer of cocaine occurred.

The Court of Appeal held that this incomplete and unhelpful response compromised trial fairness and left the jury adrift to assess conflicting bases of culpability.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his robbery convictions on the ground that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that while it would have been better to give the cautionary instruction, no request was made at trial.

The Court applied the curative proviso and dismissed the appeal, finding that the identification and circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

The appellant was detained by police investigating trespass and liquor offences.

An altercation ensued, leading to his arrest and the discovery of a handgun in his backpack.

At trial, the appellant argued his detention was arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, but the trial judge dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable suspicion.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the s. 9 ruling.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, concluding that the totality of the circumstances supported a reasonable suspicion that the appellant was engaged in trespass or liquor-related offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an acquittal, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a police search of a hotel bedroom was not a justified safety search and in excluding the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the officers had predetermined to conduct the search before arriving, which supported the trial judge's conclusion that there was no reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence, as the trial judge did not find the search was conducted in good faith.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter for the death of his severely disabled brother, whom he had removed from a care facility to misappropriate his disability cheques.

The victim died from starvation and neglect after eight years of abuse.

The trial judge imposed a 20-year sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was beyond the established range and that the trial judge improperly treated a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the horrific aggravating circumstances justified a sentence outside the usual range.

However, the appeal was allowed solely to apply enhanced pre-sentence custody credit under Summers, reducing the net sentence to 14 years and 11 months.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 12.5 years for manslaughter.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly consider his self-induced intoxication and that the sentence was clearly unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding the trial judge properly considered the intoxication and the sentence fell within the acceptable range for aggravated manslaughter.

However, based on the intervening Supreme Court decision in Summers, the court allowed the appeal solely to grant enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody, reducing the net sentence to 10 years and 5 months.