David Midanik

The appellant appealed an order finding him in civil contempt and sentencing him to 42 days in jail and a $40,000 fine for refusing to answer questions during an examination in aid of execution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in refusing an adjournment, that the appellant knew which answers were inadequate, and that continued disobedience of court orders justifies incremental penal sanctions.

The sentence was upheld as reasonable given the appellant's repeated and flagrant disregard for the court's authority.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that a release in a settlement agreement with her former employer did not bar her claim for long-term disability benefits against the insurer.

She argued the release violated the Employment Standards Act by effectively waiving her right to benefit coverage during the statutory notice period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the employer had maintained coverage as required by the Act, and the appellant was free to compromise her claim for benefits.

The Court also upheld the finding that the insurer, as a third-party beneficiary, could enforce the release.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's inference that the appellant knew there was a gun in the car he was driving was logically consistent and reasonably supported by the totality of the evidence, including the time of day, the presence of latex gloves, and the fact that the gun was not hidden.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and disobeying a court order, as well as his sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the conviction was unreasonable due to acquittals on related counts, and that the sentencing judge erred by relying on expert evidence that considered the acquitted counts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient corroborative evidence for the assault charge to distinguish it from the acquitted counts.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly disregarded the acquitted counts and the expert confirmed their opinion on the appellant's risk level would remain unchanged.

The Crown appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that granted the respondent limited community access for special purposes.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's order was supported by evidence from the treating psychiatrist and was not unreasonable.

The Court allowed the appeal only to the extent of adding uncontested conditions prohibiting the respondent from possessing intoxicants and weapons, which had been inadvertently omitted from the Board's order.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding his committal to stand trial on a charge of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the reviewing judge's conclusion that a reasonable jury could find the appellant formed a common intention with a group to assault and intimidate rival gang members, and knew or should have known that bodily harm was likely to result.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that overturned a summary conviction judge's ruling.

The summary conviction judge had held that he lacked jurisdiction to hear a freestanding application for costs based on alleged Charter breaches after the Crown withdrew the charges prior to arraignment and plea.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the summary conviction judge's ruling.

The Court held that absent abuse of process or flagrant impropriety by the Crown, the summary conviction court's jurisdiction ends when charges are withdrawn, and it cannot hold a freestanding hearing on costs.

The respondent's remedy lies in a civil action.

The Crown appealed an order upholding a summary conviction court's decision to proceed with an application for costs after charges against the respondent were withdrawn.

Relying on the companion appeal of R. v. Fach, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the lower court's decision, and prohibited the summary conviction court from proceeding with the costs application.

The Court also rejected the respondent's allegations of abuse of process by the Crown in withdrawing the charges.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for certiorari regarding an order for committal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the conclusion that the evidence supported the committal order and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine, arguing the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable due to misapprehension of evidence, reliance on improper factors in assessing credibility, and failure to consider defence submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully reviewed a wide range of factors, her credibility findings were supported by the evidence, and she had properly considered counsel's submissions.

The Crown appealed an order staying proceedings against a young offender.

The trial judge had granted the stay due to concerns over the slow pace of Crown disclosure and the circumstances of the youth's custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a stay is a remedy of last resort and was not appropriate in this case, as it was not directly responsive to the violation and should not be used to discipline the Crown or police.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted to the Youth Court.

The appellants challenged robbery and firearms convictions arising from a violent home invasion robbery involving multiple victims, police surveillance, intercepted communications, and a getaway vehicle stop.

The Court of Appeal rejected all conviction grounds, holding that any errors in the Corbett rulings, party liability instruction, identification charge, co-conspirator instruction, and post-offence conduct instruction either did not occur or caused no prejudice.

The court found the evidence against both appellants strong, including surveillance, wiretap evidence, and surrounding circumstantial evidence.

On sentence, however, the court found unwarranted disparity with a co-accused’s sentence and held that one appellant should have received enhanced credit for pretrial custody.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted and the sentences were reduced to 11 years and 10 years respectively.