Darla A. Wilson

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The court found that the motion judge erred in law by holding that the purchasers' requisitions regarding oil and gas leases were invalid because they did not go to the root of title.

The court was not satisfied that it could determine the validity of the requisitions on the record before it.

The moving party, a youth offender convicted of assault causing bodily harm, sought bail pending his appeal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the moving party's extensive history of breaching pretrial release conditions, including fleeing police and possessing weapons, demonstrated he would not surrender into custody.

Furthermore, the court held that his detention was necessary in the public interest due to significant public safety concerns and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant, convicted of firearms offences, applied for a review of a decision denying him bail pending appeal under s. 680 of the Criminal Code.

Despite the Crown consenting to release, the bail judge had denied bail based on the seriousness of the offence and the perceived weakness of the sentence appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the bail judge erred in principle by failing to consider the merit of the conviction appeal and the numerous public safety factors supporting release.

The application was granted and bail was ordered on the terms proposed by the parties.

The appeal concerns who is liable for outstanding municipal taxes in a receiver's sale of assets with an approval and vesting order (AVO).

The motion judge found the purchaser liable because the taxes were not yet due at closing.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under s. 307(3) of the Municipal Act, liability for the taxes arose on January 1 of the relevant taxation years, prior to closing.

Therefore, the liability remained with the vendor (the receiver) and was vested out of the purchased assets by the AVO.

The appellant estate appealed the dismissal of an application to rectify a will that lacked a residue clause.

The testator and her life partner had wills drafted by the same lawyer, but the testator's will omitted a residue clause, resulting in the residue passing on intestacy to her brother.

The application judge found that while the omission was an error, the evidence of the testator's intention was not so strong that no other contrary intention could be supposed, particularly given the lack of evidence from the drafting solicitor.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's assessment of the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, assault, and mischief arising from a lengthy relationship with the complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred by requiring corroboration, improperly relying on bad character evidence, and misapprehending evidence regarding his motivation for lying to police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not require corroboration, did not engage in propensity reasoning, and made no material misapprehension of evidence.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after stabbing the deceased, who had previously robbed him of a firearm.

On appeal, the appellant argued that administrative errors in compiling the 2022 jury roll violated his Charter rights to a representative jury and caused a miscarriage of justice.

He also challenged the trial judge's refusal to leave self-defence with the jury, the admission of prior discreditable conduct evidence, the voluntariness of his police statement, and the fitness of his 13-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no appearance of unfairness in the jury roll process, no air of reality to self-defence, and no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or sentencing.

The moving party, Ms. Guillaume, brought a motion to set aside an order of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that dismissed her motion for leave to appeal for delay.

The underlying appeal concerned a judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board regarding the removal and care costs of 41 cats.

Ms. Guillaume failed to file acceptable motion materials despite extensions and notices, and provided no explanation for the delay.

The court dismissed her motion, finding no merit in the proposed appeal and concluding that the justice of the case did not favour setting aside the dismissal order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal concerning spousal support.

The husband appealed a Superior Court decision that significantly increased his lump sum spousal support obligation to the wife from an arbitration award.

The Court of Appeal found that both the appeal judge and the arbitrator erred in their application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

The appeal judge failed to give deference to the arbitrator's findings and ignored relevant factors, while the arbitrator failed to adequately explain the departure from SSAGs.

The Court of Appeal substituted its own award, increasing the lump sum spousal support to $678,888 (from the arbitrator's $250,000, but less than the appeal judge's $1,893,603) and awarded the wife $100,000 in arbitration costs.

The appellants, David Case and Celine Loyer, appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's "flashback" memory being unreliable.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's memory and the confirmatory evidence to be reasonable and not fundamentally flawed.

The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasoning regarding the reliability of the "sleeping flashback" was circular and illogical, and that the confirmatory evidence was overstated.

Both sentence appeals regarding a no-contact condition were also dismissed.

The appellant, Ms. Wong, appealed a lower court's finding of civil fraud against her, which arose from her misrepresentation to Aviva Insurance Company of Canada regarding who was driving during a motor vehicle accident.

The original application sought a declaration that Aviva owed her a defence, which was denied due to policy breach and civil fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Aviva had suffered a real, albeit unquantified, loss due to Ms. Wong's actions, specifically in terms of its ability to defend the main action, thereby satisfying the loss element of civil fraud.

This appeal arose from a Superior Court order finding a director in civil contempt for failing to comply with an order for document production and examination in aid of execution in assessment proceedings.

The appellants argued there was no factual basis for the contempt finding and that enforcement was not in the interests of justice due to ongoing litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's application of civil contempt principles, emphasizing that court orders must be followed unless stayed or overturned, and that reliance on legal advice does not shield a party from contempt.

The parties subsequently agreed on terms to purge the contempt and costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence action against one defendant (Franchetto) following a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge found Franchetto not negligent, applying the "sudden emergency" doctrine.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that Franchetto's actions were reasonable given the sudden emergency created by the other driver.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Sajjad Asghar, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action and the grant of summary judgment in favour of the respondent, Dial and File Process Servers Inc. The original action sought summary judgment against the respondent for not timely returning legal documents.

The motion judge found no liability on the part of the respondent for any asserted causes of action (fraud, breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act) and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent did nothing wrong.

The appellant, Harris Nnane, appealed his first-degree murder convictions, seeking to introduce fresh evidence from Alexander Fountain, who identified a third man, Jaiden Jackson (now deceased), as the shooter.

Nnane also argued the verdict was unreasonable regarding identity and planning/deliberation, and that the trial judge erred in jury instructions and by not conducting a post-verdict juror inquiry.

The majority dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding it not credible due to collusion, and upheld the convictions, concluding the verdict was reasonable and no errors occurred.

The dissenting judge would have admitted the fresh evidence and ordered a new trial, finding Fountain's evidence reasonably capable of belief.

The appellant, S.M., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred by misapprehending the complainant's evidence regarding her alleged financial motive to fabricate and by failing to properly consider the implausibility of the assaults given the proximity of sleeping children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and concluding that the trial judge adequately addressed the implausibility argument.

The court affirmed the trial judge's entitlement to believe the complainant's testimony.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for manslaughter, appealed the Ontario Review Board's detention order for failing to include a community living term.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable because it did not adequately balance all factors under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, specifically the appellant's reintegration into society and mental condition, beyond public safety concerns.

The court emphasized the importance of including a community living term to address housing waitlists and facilitate long-term reintegration, even if not immediately exercisable, especially when there is no evidence of public safety risk.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition order was amended to include a community living term with conditions.

This motion sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal in an estate matter.

The moving parties, two brothers, were one day late in filing their appeal materials.

The court considered the factors for granting an extension of time, including the intention to appeal, length and explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, and merits of the appeal.

The court found the explanation for delay unsatisfactory, no actual prejudice identified, and the proposed appeal grounds exceedingly weak, particularly regarding the discretionary decision to deny an adjournment.

Given the moving parties' history of uncooperative and delaying conduct in the underlying estate application, the court determined it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the moving parties on a substantial indemnity basis, to be offset against their share of the estate.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict from a motor vehicle accident trial where the jury found she suffered injuries but not a loss of competitive advantage.

The appellant argued the jury's answers were irreconcilable and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the jury's verdict, finding it was supported by evidence and met the high standard of appellate review for jury findings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to add three individual respondents as defendants in her wrongful dismissal action, alleging they were common employers.

The motion judge found the claim against them statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period, as the appellant knew or ought to have known the material facts supporting her claim at the time of termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability and common employer principles, and dismissed the appeal.