David M. Paciocco

The appellant, Dellen Millard, appealed his conviction for the murder of Wayne Millard and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in his arguments regarding the unreasonableness of the verdict, including the trial judge's reliance on a dangerous witness, the sufficiency of alibi evidence, and cellphone findings.

The court upheld the trial judge's findings, emphasizing the overwhelming evidence supporting the conviction.

The sentence appeal was granted, and the s. 745.51 order was quashed, though the sentence otherwise remained intact.

The Crown appealed an acquittal of Kevin Davis for impaired driving, arguing the summary conviction appeal judge erred in upholding the trial judge's decision to exclude breath samples due to a s. 10(b) Charter informational breach.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that the "obtained in a manner" issue was not properly raised, and that the appeal judge's findings on the seriousness and impact of the breach were reasonable and owed deference.

The court emphasized that the "fresh start" doctrine should be applied cautiously to informational breaches, especially when the subsequent compliance does not fully dispel the initial breach's effects.

The appellants appealed their convictions for second-degree murder and manslaughter arising from a fatal group assault.

The primary appellant, convicted of murder as the stabber, sought to introduce fresh expert evidence and challenged the trial judge's instructions on identification and a key witness.

The co-appellants, convicted of manslaughter, argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on causation, specifically regarding whether the stabbing was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding the jury instructions, when read as a whole, properly conveyed the law of causation and the requirements for assessing witness credibility.

The appellant, Thomas Grieco, appealed a summary judgment order requiring specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a lakefront property.

The issues on appeal concerned the validity of purchaser requisitions (specifically a holdback requisition related to non-resident tax under the Income Tax Act), whether the vendor was ready to close, and the appropriateness of specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that the holdback requisition was valid, the vendor was not ready, willing, and able to close due to non-compliance with the APS, and specific performance was an appropriate remedy given the property's unique characteristics.

The court-appointed receiver, KSV Restructuring Inc., moved to quash an appeal by the debtor, 30 Roe Investments Corp., from orders approving the sale of two condominium units. 30 Roe argued the units should be sold en bloc, not individually, and that the sales diminished the "Enterprise" value.

The Court of Appeal found no appeal as of right under BIA s. 193(a)-(c) as the appeal did not involve future rights, did not directly involve property value loss (as the sales were at market price and the en bloc argument was a collateral attack on prior unappealed orders), and was not likely to affect other similar cases.

The court also denied leave to appeal under BIA s. 193(e), finding the issue not of general importance, not prima facie meritorious, and unduly hindering the receivership.

The appeal was quashed, and leave to appeal denied.

The appellant was convicted of accessing child pornography following the execution of a search warrant at his residence where police obtained passwords for electronic devices and seized digital evidence.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches but admitted most of the seized evidence, excluding only material obtained from a cellphone.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge erred by characterizing the s. 8 breach as minimal despite findings that officers routinely sought passwords without valid consent, reflecting systemic misconduct.

Applying the Grant framework anew, the court excluded the contents of a computer but admitted evidence from a USB thumb drive and photographs taken during the search.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal from trial orders concerning the equalization of net family property between former spouses.

Both parties, self-represented, challenged the trial judge's factual findings on asset valuation, debts, and trust account funds.

The Court of Appeal reiterated the significant deference owed to trial judges in family law financial disputes, particularly given the complex and inconsistent evidence presented at trial.

Finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's determinations, the court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, upholding the original equalization payment order.

His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario appealed a decision denying a declaration that its general liability insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, had a duty to defend Ontario in a class action.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in interpreting the Second Policy's Personal Injury coverage, which did not include the "neither expected nor intended" limitation applicable to Bodily Injury.

However, the appeal was ultimately dismissed because the claim for coverage under the Second Policy was premature.

Ontario had not yet incurred the $5,000,000 "Ultimate Net Loss" self-insured retention, which included defence costs, required to trigger St. Paul's duty to defend.

The appellant, Michael Davani, appealed his conviction for murder, raising three grounds: improper cross-examination on prior discreditable conduct by co-accused's counsel, unfairness due to the trial judge's criticism and interjections, and an unbalanced jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Pollock principles regarding bad character evidence, no inappropriate or excessive judicial interventions, and that the jury charge was fair and balanced when read as a whole.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The appeal argued that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, specifically regarding "gaps" in the complainant's testimony, the absence of a key witness, and the failure to explicitly instruct on legal principles like *W.(D.)*.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and that no cumulative errors warranted a new trial.

Leave to appeal sentence was also denied as no grounds were advanced.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breach of probation.

He argued the trial judge erred in failing to find breaches of his ss. 9 and 10(a) Charter rights during a motor vehicle stop and in failing to exclude the gun and drugs under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal found a s. 10(a) breach occurred when police delayed informing the appellant he was being investigated for a firearm, but concluded under a fresh s. 24(2) analysis that the evidence should not be excluded.

The appeal was dismissed.

The employee, originally a co-founder and CEO, was dismissed without cause in 2017.

The employer relied on a 2005 employment contract to limit termination pay.

The motion judge found the 2005 contract unenforceable under the changed substratum doctrine due to fundamental increases in the employee's responsibilities over the years, awarding 18 months' reasonable notice and damages for lost bonus entitlements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, upholding the application of the changed substratum doctrine and the award for lost bonus.

The Court allowed the employee's cross-appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred by deducting the entire pre-dismissal bonus payment from the damages award, and increased the damages accordingly.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of a youth charged with impaired driving causing death.

The trial judge had excluded evidence of the youth's statements to a paramedic, breath samples, and blood samples, finding multiple breaches of section 8 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the youth had a reasonable expectation of privacy during a medical assessment in an ambulance, and that the police officer's breath demand lacked subjective grounds.

The Court also agreed that the subsequent breath demand by a technician was tainted by the initial breach, and that the search warrant for hospital records was invalid.

The exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) was upheld due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

The appellant appealed a disposition from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) ordering his transfer from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to the High Secure Forensic Program at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the transfer was not the least onerous or restrictive alternative and that the Board erred by failing to address a "treatment impasse" particularly concerning his aversion to clozapine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the ORB's conclusion that the transfer was "necessary and appropriate" to manage public safety risk and meet the appellant's needs.

The court also found no evidence of a treatment impasse before the Board that would warrant intervention.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents for first-degree murder and kidnapping.

At trial, a key alleged co-conspirator refused to testify, prompting the Crown to seek the admission of his prior police statements under the principled hearsay exception.

The trial judge excluded the statements, finding they lacked threshold procedural and substantive reliability, particularly given the witness's status as a Vetrovec witness, inconsistencies in the statements, and the lack of cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no reversible error in applying the Bradshaw framework and concluding that the corroborative evidence did not overcome the specific hearsay dangers.

Donovan Shah appealed his convictions for possession of heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal raised two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the search warrant affiant regarding the inclusion of information about dismissed charges, and whether the trial judge improperly used Shah's pretrial silence to assess his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to deny cross-examination and concluding that the trial judge did not rely on pretrial silence in assessing credibility.

The appellants, Leopold and Matthiew Mercier, appealed their seven-year jail sentences for commercial drug trafficking and related offences, arguing the sentences were unfit given their Indigenous background and the absence of Gladue Reports at sentencing.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and admitted fresh Gladue Reports as evidence.

However, the court dismissed the appeals, finding that despite the Gladue factors, the original sentences, which were based on joint submissions and fell at the lower end of the applicable range for such serious commercial trafficking, remained fit, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision not to terminate a commercial tenancy and grant a writ of possession, despite the tenant's late payment of outstanding rent.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the substantive rights in the ongoing action.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court for the appellant to seek leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario summarily dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant, Stewart Wilson, under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari, requested the dismissal, arguing the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the appeal, stemming from long-standing, acrimonious litigation, was an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided and to indirectly participate in a trial where the appellant's pleadings had been struck due to contempt.

The court concluded that allowing the appeal to proceed would be an abuse of process, citing the appellant's history of wasteful litigation, failure to pay costs, and relitigation of settled issues.

The appellant, Vadim Ilia, appealed convictions for accessing and possessing child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants.

The trial judge had found a Charter violation due to a misdescription in one warrant but admitted the evidence, and relied on a prior 2015 investigation to establish reasonable grounds for the warrants, despite the Crown's concession against its use for that purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2015 investigation was properly available for consideration and, in any event, there was no "gap" in the reasonable grounds for the warrants, as the possibility of third-party internet access was not sufficiently weighty to undermine the probability of the IP address being used by someone at the linked address.