Darla A. Wilson

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.

This is an appeal concerning a dispute over the retention of a deposit on a commercial property after the agreement of purchase and sale (APS) was terminated.

The motion judge had found that the respondents (buyers) were entitled to terminate the APS and recover their $350,000 deposit because the appellant (seller) failed to comply with requisitions to remove an open building permit, which constituted a valid objection to title.

The appellant's claims for the deposit and punitive damages were denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that the outstanding work permit entitled the respondents to terminate the APS, as it prevented the appellant from conveying good and marketable title.

The moving party, Fariborz Tavana, on behalf of Master Tech Inc., sought to set aside an order dismissing his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The underlying appeal related to a costs order and the dismissal of an action.

The Court of Appeal identified several impediments, including the dissolution of Master Tech Inc., Mr. Tavana's lack of authority to act for the corporation, and the absence of any reviewable error in the prior decision.

The court found no arguable merit to the proposed appeal and a consistent pattern of delay.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, Wasif Rashidi, appealed a summary judgment order awarding damages to M.T. Johnstone Construction Ltd. for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellant failed to close on a property purchase and argued he was orally promised an assignment, which was not honoured, and that the respondent failed to mitigate damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the realtor was the appellant's agent, the assignment conditions were not met, and the respondent had reasonably mitigated damages.

The court also rejected arguments of economic frustration and judicial bias.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal was advised that the trial, which addressed equalization, child support, and spousal support, had recently concluded but the trial reasons for decision had not yet been released.

The appellant argued that the appeal should not proceed without these reasons, a position the respondent's counsel acknowledged as arguably premature.

Given the significance of equalization and the issues before the panel, the Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal until after the trial reasons are released.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the attendance.

The appellant, Manjunath C. Kuppa, appealed an order striking his pleadings (and those of two other respondents) due to persistent non-compliance with court orders and non-disclosure in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that striking pleadings was an appropriate remedy in these exceptional circumstances, consistent with the Family Law Rules' objective of dealing with cases justly, especially when lesser remedies had proven futile.

The court also ordered the appellant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his oppression action by way of summary judgment.

The action arose from a condominium fire, subsequent lien for remediation costs, and eventual power of sale of his unit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's decisions regarding amendments to the claim, expert evidence, the suitability of summary judgment, or apprehension of bias.

The appellant, Mr. Thomas, appealed the dismissal of his Hague Convention application for the return of his son, Isaiah, from Toronto to his habitual residence in Balch Springs, Texas.

The application judge had found that the appellant unequivocally acquiesced to the child's relocation.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred by reversing the burden of proof, misapplying the standard of "clear and cogent evidence" for acquiescence, and failing to properly consider the appellant's subjective intention.

The Court reiterated that the standard for finding acquiescence is high and that the Hague Convention's objective is the prompt return of abducted children.

The appeal was allowed, and the child was ordered to be returned to Texas.

The appellant, Gurdeep Nagra, appealed an order from a motion judge that had dismissed his appeal from a Registrar in Bankruptcy's decision.

The Registrar had reduced Nagra's claim in Verinder Malhotra's bankruptcy by expunging a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting the deference owed to the Registrar's ruling and that the appellant's arguments, which were not raised before the Registrar, were unsuccessful.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision on three issues: the inclusion of a "Maher payment" (110 gold coins) in the net family property (NFP) calculation, the failure to order an unequal division of NFP due to short marriage duration and non-disclosure of assets, and the method of payment for the gold coins.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's decision.

It held that the Maher payment was correctly included, consistent with prior jurisprudence, and found no error in the decision not to order an unequal division given the evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's practical approach of deducting the Canadian equivalent of the gold coins from the equalization payment.

A procedural fairness argument was also rejected.

The appellant appealed a trial order concerning parenting time, decision-making authority, and child support arrears, and sought leave to appeal a costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it repetitive of trial evidence and not meeting the Palmer test.

The Court upheld the trial judge's decisions on equal parenting time (2-2-3 schedule), parallel decision-making (even though parties sought sole authority), and the finding that the appellant waived entitlement to retroactive child support.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied, as the trial judge's discretion was found to be properly exercised based on the appellant's litigation conduct.

The applicant, Xin Peng, sought a review of a motion judge's order that dismissed her motion to extend the time to file a motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The Divisional Court had previously dismissed her motion for leave to appeal from two costs orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis or conclusion.

The court affirmed that the Divisional Court is not required to provide reasons for refusing leave to appeal, as this is standard practice for appellate courts.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found the proposed motion for leave to appeal to be without merit.

The review motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party, May Hing Tam.

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge's decision that dismissed her motion to extend the time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The Divisional Court had dismissed her application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting unacceptable delay and lack of merit in the proposed appeal, as the underlying Human Rights Tribunal decision was fact-based and the Divisional Court found no question of law warranting intervention.

The review motion was dismissed.

The appellant challenged an application judge's decision concerning a right of way dispute between properties.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors of fact or legal errors in the application judge's analysis, noting that the lower court was entitled to resolve evidentiary conflicts.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed orders striking out two applications, arguing they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, were improperly commenced, and that the motion judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions on all grounds.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and uttering threats, raising grounds of inadequate trial interpretation and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that while interpretation issues were minor, trial counsel's failure to investigate and utilize a surreptitious audio recording of the complainant's conversation, which contradicted her testimony on a key credibility point, constituted ineffective assistance.

This failure, combined with the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence, rendered the verdict unreliable.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

Thomas Adderley appealed his conviction for sexual assault and sought leave to appeal his 18-month custodial sentence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence, failing to properly apply the law, and overlooking an absence of forensic evidence.

Regarding the sentence, the appellant contended that the trial judge erred in finding unprotected sexual intercourse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction and the appeal from sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or the treatment of the aggravating factor.

The appellant was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of the verdict, specifically the finding of constructive possession of fentanyl located in a backpack in the trunk of a car the appellant was driving.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge's inference of guilt was reasonable, given the circumstantial evidence, the high value of the fentanyl, and the absence of an exculpatory explanation from the appellant.

The appellant sought to strike his guilty plea for tax evasion, arguing the sentencing judge failed to adequately inform him he was waiving his right to a trial where the Crown bore the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found that a different judge had already provided this information four days prior to the plea, and the appellant was fully aware of the implications of his plea.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court also noted that by pleading guilty, the appellant waived his right to challenge a prior Charter application decision.