David M. Paciocco

The appellant sought to overturn a trial decision regarding pension division, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted a separation agreement by awarding a current pension value instead of a fixed amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the parties' objective intention for a pro-rata share of the pension's actual present value, and rejected the appellant's attempt to introduce fresh evidence as an abuse of process.

The appellant sought to continue the assessment of solicitor accounts, which the application judge dismissed due to a jurisdictional issue (late requisition under the Solicitors Act).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that courts should facilitate account assessment and that procedural defects should not be treated as nullities, especially when parties have consented and participated for years.

The court ordered the Assessment Officer to issue a decision on the merits without delay.

The appellants failed to appear for their scheduled appeal hearing before the Court of Appeal for Ontario, despite attempts by the court and respondent's counsel to contact them.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants, a Township and its officials, appealed the dismissal of their anti-SLAPP motion seeking to dismiss a defamation and misfeasance in public office action brought by the respondents, owners of a community newspaper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable error in the motion judge's application of the anti-SLAPP test under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the weighing of public interest in expression versus harm to reputation, and the assessment of available defences.

The court affirmed that the motion judge correctly applied the legal tests and that anti-SLAPP motions are not the forum for definitive determinations of complex defences.

D.M. appealed convictions for sexual exploitation and sexual assault.

The complainant had an intellectual disability.

The Court of Appeal found several errors in the trial judge's conduct and jury instructions, including the Crown's improper use of expert evidence to bolster the complainant's credibility, misdirection on the W.(D.) rule regarding exculpatory evidence, improper cross-examination of the accused regarding motives for false allegations, and misdirection on the use of after-the-fact conduct evidence.

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

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder in 2003, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that continued his detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

He sought an absolute or conditional discharge, arguing the Board failed to apply the "significant threat" test and consider all relevant factors for a necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the "significant threat" test and reasonably concluded that a detention order was required given the appellant's ongoing mental illness, lack of insight, and risk of aggression, despite some progress.

This grouped appeal concerned four applications seeking declarations that the appellant insurers had a duty to defend the respondent corporations against claims of property damage arising from condominium construction deficiencies.

The application judge found a duty to defend based on the "mere possibility" test and refused ex ante allocation of defence costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurers' appeal, affirming the application judge's findings that the "mere possibility" test applies to exclusions and that courts should not conduct a "trial within a trial" on duty to defend applications.

The court also upheld the order for pre-notification defence costs and dismissed a cross-appeal regarding the assessment of past defence costs.

The appellants, convicted of sexual assault, appealed their convictions.

They argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's memory gaps due to intoxication, reversing the burden of proof, and failing to consider an exculpatory statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's analysis of consent and memory gaps was reasonable, the burden of proof was correctly applied, and the exculpatory statement lacked probative value regarding the complainant's subjective consent.

Lynne Foulidis appealed a Superior Court order granting a charging order against her Toronto residence to Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation for $664,323.38 in legal fees.

The charging order was granted to secure outstanding legal fees from family litigation.

Lynne argued the property was no longer in existence for the purpose of the charging order due to a prior transfer to George Foulidis, that the lawyer's contribution was not substantial, and that there was no risk of non-payment.

Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation cross-appealed on costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Lynne's appeal, upholding the charging order, finding that the property was in existence (subject to a triable issue of fraudulent conveyance), the lawyer's contribution was instrumental, and there was a clear refusal to pay fees.

The cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed, but costs of the appeal were awarded to Jodi L. Feldman Professional Corporation.

The appellant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., appealed a trial judgment that ordered specific performance and an abatement in favour of the respondent, M & M Homes Inc., regarding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial land.

The appellant had failed to provide required services by a specified deadline, leading to the respondent suing for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision on specific performance, the abatement, the discretionary dismissal of the appellant's motion to amend pleadings, and rejecting claims of bias and the appeal of full indemnity costs.

Roger Poirier (appellant) sued multiple defendants for fraud and misrepresentation related to a failed business investment.

He settled his claim with one defendant, Jerry Friedberg, but failed to disclose this settlement to the other defendants for six months.

The motion judge stayed the action against the remaining defendants, finding the non-disclosure to be an abuse of process.

Poirier appealed, arguing the motion judge applied an incorrect legal test and made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that immediate disclosure of settlement agreements that fundamentally alter the litigation landscape is mandatory, and failure to do so constitutes an abuse of process warranting a stay of proceedings, regardless of prejudice to the non-settling parties.

Richard Aguilar appealed his convictions for child luring and communicating for sexual services, and his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from text message conversations with an undercover officer believed to be a 14-year-old girl, part of 'Project Raphael'.

Aguilar alleged errors in the trial judge's findings regarding the offences and rejection of his innocent explanations.

He also argued the sentence was unfit, lacked parity, and did not adequately consider his health or sentencing delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, no error in credibility findings, and no reversal of the burden of proof.

The court also found the sentence fit and that the principle of parity was not disregarded.

The appellant, J.A., appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting the appellant's police statement as voluntary evidence.

The appellant contended that the trial judge, after finding an inducement, failed to adequately consider all oppressive circumstances in determining if his will was overborne.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly applied the legal test for voluntariness and considered all relevant circumstances, and that the finding of voluntariness was entitled to significant appellate deference.

The appellant, Feisal Noor, appealed his conviction on firearms-related charges, arguing that his s. 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention and s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the police had reasonable suspicion for an investigative detention and that the handgun was found in plain view during a lawful struggle, thus dismissing the Charter application and affirming the conviction.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondent on two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm, which arose from an incident where her dogs attacked a toddler and a babysitter.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's ruling to exclude evidence of three prior incidents involving the dogs.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by treating the absence of "discreditable conduct" as a basis for exclusion rather than as a factor in applying the similar fact evidence rule.

The court also found that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence regarding the timing and relevance of the prior incidents.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered, with the prior incident evidence deemed admissible.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding him liable for the respondent's severe ankle injury under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal, including alleged errors in factual findings, disregard for evidence timing, failure to appreciate an affidavit's relevance, and errors in credibility assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's detailed reasons, factual conclusions, evidentiary decisions, or credibility findings, emphasizing the deference owed to the trial judge.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their summary judgment motion and granting summary judgment and a permanent stay to the respondents.

The core issue was the appellants' failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements with other defendants, which altered the litigation's adversarial landscape.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's finding that these contingent settlement agreements, which included provisions for private evidence gathering and financial incentives for cooperation, changed the adversarial relationship into a cooperative one, triggering the immediate disclosure rule from Handley Estate.

The court reiterated that immediate disclosure is mandatory, regardless of contingencies or confidentiality clauses, and that a stay of proceedings is the appropriate remedy for such an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed.

James Faichney, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for an assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the ORB erred by failing to consider a Gladue report and principles, and that its finding of a "significant threat" to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ORB implicitly considered Gladue factors relevant to the threat assessment by addressing the availability of culturally appropriate care, and that the "significant threat" finding was reasonable given evidence of medication non-compliance and unrealistic expectations for independent care.

This is an appeal concerning the addition of a third party (Cruickshank Construction Limited) to a lawsuit and the application of limitation periods.

The defendants in the original action sought to add Cruickshank as a third party, alleging it was responsible for winter maintenance on Highway 401 where an accident occurred.

The motion judge allowed the addition, finding the claim was not statute-barred and that Cruickshank could not plead a limitation defence.

Cruickshank appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in finding a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovering the claim and in preventing them from pleading a limitation defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the discovery analysis, and affirming the judge's discretion to make a final determination on the limitation issue given the comprehensive record and the age of the litigation.

A police services board and a detective appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for false arrest, negligent investigation, and malicious prosecution, with significant damages awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on lack of reasonable and probable grounds and malice, and the cross-appeal, affirming the costs award.