David A. Shiller

The appellant was unsuccessful at trial, where the trial judge made no order as to costs due to her impecuniosity.

The appellant subsequently pursued an appeal and was again entirely unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents, holding that they should not be deprived of their costs a second time despite the appellant's financial circumstances.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was charged with theft after management viewed a videotape and contacted police.

She was acquitted and subsequently sued the arresting officer and the restaurant owner for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation.

A jury found against her on all issues.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft, failed to outline her position, and improperly allowed the defendants to expand the theft allegation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict and concluding the jury was properly instructed.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was acquitted of criminal theft charges and subsequently sued her employer and the arresting officer for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, and other claims.

A jury dismissed all her claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft and failed to properly outline her position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the jury was entitled to reach its factual conclusions based on the evidence.

The appellant brought a motion to vary a stay order regarding the revocation of its liquor licence, seeking permission to open its back patio during the summer.

The respondent Commission opposed the motion and brought a countermotion to lift the stay, alleging the appellant breached the conditions of the stay.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the appellant's request to vary the conditions was not justified and that the Commission failed to prove the alleged breaches.

The court also ordered the parties to expedite the appeal.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action against the Crown and College respondents.

The appellant had asserted claims based in negligence, malice, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches relating to the suspension of his OHIP payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings were seriously deficient, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and that certain claims were res judicata.

The appellant obtained a conditional stay of a decision pending appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to revoke the stay, alleging that intoxicated patrons were found on the appellant's premises.

Due to the timing of the motion and the unavailability of the appellant's counsel, the court granted a short adjournment of the motion to revoke the stay.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondents' blanket denials of wrongdoing satisfied the threshold for a Rule 20 motion, and that the appellants' materials failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.