C.W. Hourigan

The appellant appealed his sentence for fraud, arguing the trial judge erred by not permitting him to address the court before sentencing and by finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to allow the appellant to speak was an inadvertent procedural error that would not have changed the outcome, as the judge was already aware of his remorse.

The court further found the sentence was fit given the monetary amount, breach of trust, and lengthy duration of the fraud.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and related offences, arguing the trial judge failed to scrutinize the complainant's evidence with the same rigour as his own.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not unfairly reject the appellant's evidence and was entitled to accept the complainant's explanation for her incremental disclosure.

The court concluded the trial judge's reasons were adequate to permit meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for malicious prosecution against the respondents.

The trial judge had found that the appellant failed to establish the elements of malicious prosecution, specifically that the respondents, rather than the Crown, made the decision to prosecute.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the law or apprehension of the evidence, noting that her credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant sued a police officer, alleging he suffered damages due to the officer's false testimony in a criminal trial where the appellant was ultimately acquitted.

The motion judge dismissed the claim under Rule 21.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis and noting there was no basis to conclude the appellant suffered damages from testimony on a collateral issue.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge failed to properly consider his s. 15 Charter violation and racial profiling allegations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant had not sought a specific Charter remedy at trial.

Furthermore, the trial judge's rejection of the racial profiling claim was based on credibility findings that were open to her on the evidence.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting the developer's application for declarations that the appellants were bound by agreements of purchase and sale for two hotel investment condominium units, and dismissing the appellants' application for a refund of deposits.

The appellants argued that changes to the building, including a reduction from 70 to 60 stories and changes to PATH access, constituted material changes under the Condominium Act, entitling them to rescission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the May 2012 disclosure statement was a revised statement under s. 74(3) of the Act and that the changes were not material changes under the objective standard in s. 74(2), as they did not reasonably affect the value of the units for investment purposes.