David M. Paciocco

The appellant, Farzana Ratan Sonia, appealed a motion judge's order recognizing a Bangladesh talaq divorce and setting aside prior consent orders.

The recognition of the foreign divorce precluded her claims for spousal support and equalization of net family property in Ontario due to limitation periods and the interpretation of the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Bangladesh divorce, governed by the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, was not a "bare" talaq divorce and satisfied Canadian requirements for recognition due to state oversight and notice provisions.

The court also upheld the setting aside of consent orders due to the appellant's misrepresentation about her subsequent marriage.

This document serves as a formal header for an appeal decision, primarily noting the imposition and continuation of a publication ban under section 539 of the Criminal Code.

It explicitly states that the full judgment is subject to a statutory non-publication order, pending the outcome of the underlying trial, and is therefore not publicly accessible.

The document outlines the specific provisions of section 539 regarding the restriction of evidence publication from preliminary inquiries.

The appellant, Luigi Falsetto, appealed a lower court decision that rejected his claim for a purchase money resulting trust over a 50% interest in a property legally titled to his son and former daughter-in-law.

Luigi had provided half the purchase funds and borne half the expenses, intending the property as an investment.

The daughter-in-law was placed on title to avoid a merger of titles under the Planning Act.

The application judge found Luigi intended a gift, but the Court of Appeal found this an error of law and fact.

The Court held that the presumption of resulting trust applied, and the intention to avoid statutory consequences did not negate the actual intention to retain a beneficial interest, especially given the overwhelming evidence of an investment purpose and ongoing financial contributions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion brought by the respondents to dismiss the appellants' (Bouragbas') appeal for delay, primarily due to the appellants' inability to obtain transcripts from lower court proceedings.

The underlying appeal concerned a motion to amend a statement of claim and lift a stay.

The court determined that transcripts were not necessary for the appeal, as it was essentially an appeal on a paper record concerning pleadings.

While not dismissing the appeal outright, the court ordered the appellants to perfect their appeal within 30 days, failing which it would be administratively dismissed.

The appellant, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, appealed the dismissal of her defamation, conspiracy, and negligence claims against four defendants (Dr. Angus Maciver, André Picard, Carly Weeks, and Alheli Picazo) under Ontario's anti-SLAPP legislation (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act), and the associated costs order totaling over $1.1 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the claims were strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

The court affirmed that the "fair comment" defence was prima facie available to Picard, Weeks, and Picazo, and that the appellant failed to demonstrate "serious harm" causally linked to the defendants' expressions, which would outweigh the public interest in protecting free expression.

The court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs award, distinguishing the case from general guidance due to its complexity and the number of defendants.

This appeal concerned a dispute over a pre-construction home purchase agreement, specifically regarding the vendor's obligations in setting closing dates and obtaining an occupancy permit under the Tarion Addendum.

The appellant purchaser argued that the vendor's notices for delaying closing dates were defective due to imprecise nomenclature and failure to include revised critical dates, leading to a deemed firm closing date and the vendor's repudiation of the agreement.

The appellant also contended that the vendor was not ready to close because the occupancy permit was issued after the closing date.

The motion judge dismissed the purchaser's summary judgment motions, finding that the vendor's notices were valid despite minor nomenclature issues and that the purchaser was contractually obligated to obtain the occupancy permit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that minor nomenclature flaws in notices do not invalidate them if the intent is clear and timelines are met.

The court also confirmed that the purchaser was responsible for obtaining the occupancy permit as per the agreement of purchase and sale, which was not inconsistent with the Tarion Addendum.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the purchaser's deposit was forfeited due to their default.

The appellant, Kyle Robert Bancroft, appealed his convictions for two frauds, arguing that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient assistance to him as a self-represented accused, particularly regarding the distinction between evidence and argument and the proper procedure for impeaching witnesses.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did err in not providing adequate assistance and in refusing to allow the appellant to recall witnesses or introduce banking records.

However, the court concluded that these errors were not material to the outcome, as the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and corroborated by independent witnesses.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a class action, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding leave to pursue claims against Barrick Gold Corporation for alleged misrepresentations under the Ontario Securities Act.

The appeal concerned the denial of leave for certain misrepresentation allegations related to Barrick's capital expenditure budget and production schedule, and the identification of public correction dates.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's finding that there was no reasonable possibility of success for the additional misrepresentation claims and that the earlier public disclosure fully corrected the alleged misrepresentations, thereby limiting the class period.

This appeal concerned parenting orders for a child who suffered a catastrophic brain injury.

The trial judge granted sole decision-making responsibility and residence to the father and restricted contact for the maternal grandmother (appellant) due to her delusional beliefs and hostile conduct towards the father and medical team.

The maternal grandfather was granted supervised contact.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's application of the best interests test and alleged infringement of fair trial rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the appellant's conduct was not in the child's best interests and finding no material errors or misapprehensions of evidence.

The appellant, E.H., appealed his sentence for multiple sexual offences against his young cousin.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in principle by not giving sufficient mitigating weight to the appellant's acceptance of responsibility and expressions of remorse, despite his not formally pleading guilty, and by overemphasizing the absence of a formal guilty plea.

The court reduced the appellant's effective sentence of imprisonment from seven and a half years to five and a half years.

The Court of Appeal also addressed an unlawful lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, noting it was legally defective due to a Supreme Court of Canada decision (R. v. Ndhlovu) but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to correct this error on a sentence appeal, advising the appellant to seek remedy from the trial court.

The court declined to vary a s. 161(1)(a.1) Criminal Code prohibition order.

The appellants, a landlord and its beneficial owner, appealed a motion judge's decision that a subrogated action by the landlord's insurer against the tenant for fire damage was barred by the commercial lease.

The motion judge had found that the tenant's contribution to the landlord's fire insurance precluded such an action, despite an indemnity provision, as the lease did not explicitly state otherwise.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's interpretation of the lease, his holistic reading of its terms, or his consideration of relevant case law.

This appeal concerned the dismissal of a proposed class action against Capital One and Amazon Web following a data breach.

The motion judge had struck the appellants' pleadings without leave to amend and dismissed their certification motion, finding the case 'doomed to fail'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, affirming that the pleadings failed to disclose viable causes of action for data misuse (intrusion upon seclusion, misappropriation of personality, conversion, breach of confidence/trust/fiduciary duty) and data breach (negligence, statutory claims).

The Court also upheld the decision to deny leave to amend the pleadings, citing repeated opportunities and the defective nature of the claims.

The appellants' motion for an extension of time to appeal costs was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted against them on a personal guarantee.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not explicitly considering the three inquiries proposed in Malik v. Attia for partial summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge implicitly considered all relevant factors, and that partial summary judgment was appropriate as it resulted in cost savings, resolved a significant discrete issue, and avoided inconsistent findings.

This appeal arose from a dispute among siblings concerning the care and property of their nonagenarian mother.

The appellant challenged the application judge's decision, which declared the mother incapable, validated existing powers of attorney, and ordered the appellant to account for funds held on a resulting trust.

The appellant alleged procedural unfairness, including failure to consider his materials, denial of an adjournment, and improper dismissal of his counter-application, and sought leave to appeal the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error or procedural unfairness, and denied leave to appeal costs, affirming the application judge's discretion.

The appellants, Metro 1 Development Corporation Ltd. and its sub-tenant Athens, appealed a lower court decision that found Metro 1 in breach of a commercial lease for failing to operate a Tim Hortons restaurant and denied relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation of the lease, finding no implied term that would permit an alternative food service if a Tim Hortons franchise could not be maintained.

The court also found no error in the refusal to grant relief from forfeiture, rejecting arguments of bad faith by the respondent hospital and clarifying the scope of the duty of good faith in contract law.

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

The appellant, convicted of sexual assault, appealed on the grounds that the trial judge relied on impermissible stereotypical inferences and ungrounded common-sense assumptions in assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by relying on stereotypical reasoning regarding the complainant's willingness to engage in public sexual activity and sexual activity during menstruation, which materially influenced the credibility assessment.

The court emphasized that such reasoning violates the rule against stereotypical inferences and impermissible character reasoning.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered, as the curative proviso could not be applied due to the lack of overwhelming evidence.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the plaintiffs' motion to amend their pleadings in a class action alleging a multi-bank conspiracy to fix gold and silver prices and engage in 'spoofing'.

The motion judge had found the proposed amendments time-barred or improper for joinder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by treating amendments as new causes of action when they were alternative theories based on existing facts, and by misapplying the 'actual knowledge' standard for limitation periods.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment of JP Morgan's joinder, concluding that the CFTC order did not preclude conspiratorial spoofing allegations.

The amendments were allowed, with the possibility for some respondents to plead a limitations defence at trial.

The appellant, Nicholas Beauvais, appealed his convictions for possessing, accessing, and making child pornography available.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly consider alternative inferences to his guilt, specifically that the child pornography was downloaded by another resident or by a third-party attacker via a virus.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by dismissing these alternative inferences as "pure speculation" without adequately assessing the evidence, including conflicting testimony regarding laptop access and expert evidence about the virus's capabilities.

The court also found the trial judge attached undue weight to the "Moose" username and recycle bin evidence.

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

The Crown sought to bifurcate the conviction and sentence appeals of the respondent, C.P., who was convicted of sexual assault.

The Crown argued for bifurcation due to anticipated delays in perfecting the conviction appeal, fearing C.P. would benefit from time served on a conditional sentence.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the expected delay was not undue and that the benefits of hearing the appeals together outweighed the Crown's concerns, noting that any benefit from delay would only be granted if in the interests of justice.

Korey Rudder appealed convictions for firearm and breach offences, which were based on a constructive possession finding.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended evidence, failed to respect a factual admission by the Crown regarding vehicle ownership, and misapplied the "sufficient connection test" for third-party suspect evidence.

These errors affected the evaluation of constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

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