C.W. Hourigan

The appellant brought a private prosecution against Hydro One regarding a dispute over the delivery of utility bills.

A Justice of the Peace dismissed the prosecution, finding the facts did not disclose a criminal offence.

The appellant appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, where the judge converted the appeal to an application for mandamus.

The judge found the Justice of the Peace committed a jurisdictional error by conflating the procedures under sections 504 and 507.1 of the Criminal Code, but declined to grant mandamus because the materials did not establish a prima facie case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal and his motion for a de novo mandamus order, finding no error in the lower court's decision and noting that Hydro One had fulfilled its statutory duties.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found the respondent not liable in a multi-vehicle motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had relied on the appellant's evidence, another witness, and the accident report, while rejecting the respondent's own evidence about her position in the queue due to inconsistencies with physical damage.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed from an order refusing to quash his committal to stand trial for second degree murder.

The Crown alleged that after the appellant and others assaulted the deceased, the appellant provided a rope which the deceased used to hang himself.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly engaged in a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence and that there was a sufficient evidentiary foundation upon which a reasonable jury could infer guilt.

The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery arising out of a home invasion and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to apply the principle of parity, ignoring mitigating factors, overemphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and placing too much weight on his youth record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the sentence was fit given the serious aggravating factors, including the appellant's use of a shotgun, his extensive record, and his lack of remorse.

The appellant appealed his convictions for using an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence and breach of a recognizance.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the principal Crown witness and that the imitation firearm conviction was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the credibility assessment and concluding there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the object used was an imitation firearm.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm and drug offences, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding inconsistencies in police evidence and by refusing to allow cross-examination of a police officer about an unrelated SIU investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge on credibility was adequate and the proposed cross-examination was not relevant to the issues at trial.

The respondent punched the appellant during a recreational hockey game, breaking his jaw.

The trial judge found the respondent liable for battery.

The respondent subsequently went bankrupt.

The appellants brought a motion for a declaration that the damage award survived bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(a.1)(i) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which excepts awards for 'bodily harm intentionally inflicted'.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no intent to inflict bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the inference of intent to cause significant bodily harm was inescapable given the force of the punch and the circumstances, and declared that the damage award survived the bankruptcy.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent landlord for negligence after a fire damaged its leased premises.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding no evidence of the landlord's negligence and holding that expert evidence was required to prove causation.

On appeal, the appellant argued that common sense inferences and the landlord's spoliation of evidence (destroying a space heater) should suffice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that expert evidence was necessary given the technical nature of the building's electrical system, and noting that an adverse inference from spoliation cannot serve as positive proof of negligence.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of her appeal and sought a fourth adjournment due to alleged dental pain.

The court refused the adjournment, noting the appellant's history of delaying the litigation, the lack of medical evidence regarding her inability to proceed, and the prejudice to the respondent who had been carrying the costs of caring for their elderly mother.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, a former probationary employee of the National Research Council, brought a defamation action against his former employer and colleagues regarding statements made in a 'Release on Probation' document.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding it was barred by the grievance scheme under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, lacked evidence of defamation, and was protected by qualified privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim for professional negligence and medical malpractice against several dental surgeons.

The motion judge found the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the appellant commenced the action nearly five years after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's own pleadings and correspondence contradicted her argument that she did not discover her claim in 2006, and there was no basis to grant leave to amend a statute-barred claim.

The appellant appealed an order granting a stay of proceedings pending arbitration.

The parties had a Services Agreement with an arbitration clause and a survival clause that did not explicitly list the arbitration clause.

After the respondent terminated the agreement, the appellant sued for breach of contract and torts, and sought a declaration that the arbitration clause did not apply.

The motion judge stayed the proceedings, finding it arguable whether the arbitration clause survived, and referred the jurisdictional issue to the arbitrator under the competence-competence principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the competence-competence principle or his decision to defer the jurisdictional question to the arbitrator.

The appellant appealed a decision ordering the return of US $250,000 held in trust by the respondent law firm to the respondent client.

The appellant argued the funds were impressed with a trust in its favour and that the application judge erred in denying an adjournment to cross-examine a deponent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a trust or escrow agreement and concluding the appellant had ample opportunity to cross-examine prior to the hearing but made a tactical decision not to do so.

The appellant, an unsuccessful plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action, sued the opposing counsel for intrusion upon seclusion, breach of privacy, and negligence.

She alleged the lawyers improperly disclosed her medical and academic records.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that the appellant waived her privacy interests by putting her medical and academic status in issue in the underlying action.

The court also confirmed that opposing counsel owed no duty of care to the appellant.

The appellant father appealed the dismissal of his motion to vary an existing child residency schedule to achieve equal parenting time.

The motion judge found that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances under the Gordon v. Goertz test, despite the child's advancing age, the mother's remarriage, and the child's learning disability diagnosis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the legal test or her assessment of the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that incorporated a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal noted that the appellant had agreed to the terms of the settlement and later affirmed them before the lower court judge.

Finding nothing unconscionable about the agreement on the record, the Court of Appeal concluded there was no basis to interfere and dismissed the appeal with no costs.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault.

The complainant had no memory of the events, and the trial judge inferred she was asleep and incapable of consenting.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider the alternate inference that the complainant was awake but in an unexplained blackout state.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they failed to address and exclude this rational exculpatory inference.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a motion to review an order dismissing a motion as abandoned.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 all inclusive in favour of the respondents.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm against his nephew.

The appellant admitted to kicking the complainant in the head and body after the complainant fell to the ground during a physical altercation.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's claim of self-defence, finding the kicks were administered out of anger and a desire to inflict punishment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence, he did not misapprehend the law of self-defence, and his reasons were adequate.

The appellant appealed his four-year penitentiary sentence for voyeurism, making child pornography, and internet luring involving two teenage victims.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by over-emphasizing consecutive sentences and unreasonably assessing aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the global sentence fit given the serious aggravating features, including breach of trust, careful planning, grooming, and exploitation of a victim's poverty.