David Grant Boghosian

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact, specifically the finding that he refused to leave a pizza shop.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings and no palpable and overriding error was demonstrated.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, an Aboriginal man, was wrongfully convicted of robbery and spent 20 months in prison before being acquitted at a second trial.

He sued the police for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal affirmed that the tort of negligent police investigation exists in Ontario, rejecting UK precedent that denies a duty of care.

However, the majority upheld the trial judge's finding that the police officers' conduct, including the use of a photo line-up with only one Aboriginal person, did not fall below the standard of care or amount to malicious prosecution.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant municipality appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable in negligence after a branch from a municipally-owned tree fell on the respondent's leased vehicle.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of liability, concluding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding the municipality had notice of the hazard.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding damages, reducing the award from $10,000 to $4,314.88, as the costs associated with the respondent's voluntary early termination of the vehicle lease lacked a sufficient nexus to the municipality's negligence.

The appellant appealed an order regarding whether he was acting qua councillor in a suit brought against him by electors concerning his election expenses, and whether a City Council resolution to pay his legal fees was ultra vires.

The Court of Appeal agreed entirely with the motion judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motions judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for injuries sustained by a bus passenger when the driver braked suddenly to avoid a cyclist.

The trial judge awarded $22,500 in general damages for chronic back and hip strain, finding the injuries met the threshold under the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the defendants argued the trial judge erred in finding negligence, assessing the medical evidence, and failing to draw an adverse inference from the plaintiff not calling her initial treating physician.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and negligence.

The judgment was varied on consent only to correct a mathematical error in the statutory deductible.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for damage to the respondent's bus caused by a fire originating from a seat heater.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in stating there was a presumption of negligent manufacture, the evidence supported the conclusion that the heating pads were inappropriate components for the heavy use of the bus seat.

The appellant breached its duty to take reasonable care in manufacturing the product.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant hospital appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim for water damage caused by a roof leak.

The trial judge had concluded that the precise location of the leak could not be determined with certainty, and thus the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving the respondent was responsible.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge ignored viva voce evidence and improperly relied on hearsay documents and expert reports.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable error to justify intervention.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment in a personal injury action, arguing principally that the trial judge erred in admitting CAS records and applied the wrong onus.

The Court of Appeal held that, even if the hearsay objection had merit, the adverse credibility finding was strongly supported by other evidence and no substantial wrong or miscarriage resulted.

The court also rejected the onus argument because the finding that the bus was properly brought to a stop was a complete answer.

The threshold issue did not need to be addressed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs if demanded.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a negligence action arising from a single-vehicle accident in which the driver was seriously injured after leaving a municipal roadway.

They argued the trial judge erred in describing the accident location, in finding the roadway warning signage adequate, and in concluding causation had not been proven.

The Court of Appeal held the location was well understood by the trial judge, the warning sign sufficiently communicated the sequence of curves and advisory speed, and the causation finding was entitled to appellate deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.