David H. Doherty

The appellant factor appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of an 'Acceptance of Goods' document.

The appellant argued the document contained a promise by the respondent debtor to pay the amounts in the referenced invoices, characterizing it as an estoppel certificate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the document was merely an acknowledgement that the respondent would direct payments owed to its supplier to the appellant without set-off or deduction, but did not constitute a promise to pay the face amount of the invoices regardless of the actual amount owing.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings on certain issues for non-compliance with various disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, noting ample evidence that the appellant remained in default and that the default was wilful.

The motion judge had mitigated the drastic remedy by allowing the appellant to move to reinstate his pleadings on proper evidence, which he failed to pursue in a timely fashion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant's action was dismissed for delay in January 2013.

Eighteen months later, he brought a motion but failed to appear, resulting in its dismissal.

On appeal, the appellant sought judgment and damages of $30,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the motion judge's decision and noting it could not address the merits of the underlying claim.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action and the judgment against him on the respondents' counterclaim for expense account monies.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing two witnesses to testify who were not on the pre-trial report, finding just cause for termination without progressive discipline, and calculating the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion regarding the witnesses, and that the appellant's unauthorized trades and dishonesty justified termination without progressive discipline.

The trial judge's calculation of the counterclaim was supported by the facts.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of two young persons charged with first degree murder.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of a prior altercation and association between the respondents and the deceased while incarcerated, which the Crown alleged was relevant to motive and could confirm the testimony of an unsavoury witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the evidence lacked sufficient probative value to overcome its highly prejudicial effect, particularly after the key witness's trial testimony failed to connect the deceased to the alleged prior 'bad blood'.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim did not plead facts capable of supporting any of the causes of action against the defendant.

The Court also agreed with the motion judge that there was no basis to grant the appellants leave to amend.

The appellant appealed their conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing alibi and eyewitness evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably characterized the alibi evidence as vague and properly weighed its late disclosure.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's reliance on the recognition evidence from two independent witnesses.

The young person appealed his manslaughter conviction arising from a group assault that resulted in the victim's death.

He argued his right to silence was violated when the Crown cross-examined him using information allegedly derived from his compelled testimony at the adult co-accuseds' preliminary hearing.

He also challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on duress and aiding and abetting, and the admission of the co-accuseds' guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no violation of the right to silence, adequate jury instructions, and that any error regarding the guilty pleas caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

A law firm appealed a motion judge's order declaring that certain payments made to their former client pursuant to a settlement agreement were not subject to three charging orders in the firm's favour.

The charging orders were granted for work done in a shareholder dispute before the firm's retainer was terminated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the disputed payments arose from subsequent litigation commenced after the firm's retainer ended, and therefore were not recovered or preserved through the firm's instrumentality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The jury convicted the appellant driver of dangerous driving causing death but acquitted him of dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from the same incident.

The Court of Appeal found the verdicts irreconcilably inconsistent, as both charges relied on the same evidence regarding the identity of the driver and the nature of the driving.

The conviction for dangerous driving causing death was quashed and an acquittal entered due to issue estoppel.

The related convictions for obstructing police and being an accessory after the fact were also quashed, with a new trial ordered for the obstruction charges.

The appellant appealed an order regarding a Justice of the Peace's refusal to receive an information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if a procedural error occurred, it caused no harm.

The subject matter was essentially the same as a previous matter stayed by the Crown, meaning process would inevitably have been refused or the proceeding stayed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and nine-year sentence for sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation involving two foster children.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar fact evidence, failing to caution the jury on potential tainting, and failing to enter Kienapple stays.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no error in the admission of similar fact evidence or the jury instructions, but granted Kienapple stays on the sexual assault counts.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's deteriorating health did not render the otherwise fit sentence unfit.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 15 years after shooting a bystander outside a tavern.

He appealed his conviction, arguing improper Crown cross-examination and errors in the trial judge's instructions on intent and provocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's charge or the Crown's conduct.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the period of parole ineligibility was reduced to 12 years, as the trial judge failed to give adequate weight to the appellant's lack of criminal record and potential for rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed a conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the complainant and the appellant.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the trial judge's credibility assessments are entitled to deference and the reasons provided ample explanation for accepting the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, except for a stay of the conviction on count 1 under the Kienapple principle.

The parties entered into a joint venture to purchase and convert a property into a self-storage facility, which included a put/call agreement.

The respondent exercised the put, forcing the appellant to purchase the property at a price determined by an appraiser.

The appellant refused to close, alleging the appraiser made a manifest error by not using the income approach.

The trial judge granted specific performance to the respondent and awarded substantial indemnity costs based on an unserved offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no manifest error in the appraisal, upholding the award of specific performance for the vendor, and confirming the costs award.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was not unreasonable given the appellant's admitted non-compliance with previous dispositions, lack of insight into his condition and medical needs, and recent events.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the third requirement for adverse possession—effective exclusion of the true owner—applies even in cases of mutual mistake and was not met on the facts.

The appeal was dismissed, but the trial costs award was reduced from full indemnity to substantial indemnity.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault and choking.

On the conviction appeal, he argued that the trial judge's interventions during the complainant's cross-examination prevented a fair trial and that the trial judge erred in finding no air of reality to the defence of honest belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the interventions did not curtail cross-examination or show bias, and the factual findings foreclosed the honest belief defence.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found that consecutive sentences for sexual assault and choking were not warranted as the choking was part of the sexual assault.

The Court also applied a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, reducing the total sentence from six years to four and a half years.

The appellant appealed her conviction and 18-month sentence for aggravated assault.

She argued the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons by omitting mention of specific evidence and erred in refusing to reopen the trial based on fresh evidence concerning the complainant's victim impact statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the omitted evidence was not prominent and the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in refusing to reopen the trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 18-month sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge considered an email exchange in isolation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably interpreted the appellant's email response to the complainant's detailed allegations as a virtual confession when viewed in the context of all the evidence.