David M. Paciocco

The appellant used the respondent bank's self-service transfer facility to send funds to a Polish bank, and later claimed the beneficiary defrauded it.

The Polish bank had alerted the respondent to suspected fraud, but the respondent did not pass this information to the appellant.

The appellant sued, alleging a breach of the duty of care.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the bank's duty of care was limited to executing the transfers properly and did not require it to investigate the bona fides of the underlying transactions.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault after randomly attacking and raping a stranger walking home at night.

He was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge misapplied Gladue principles by finding his Indigenous heritage moot due to the severity of the offence, and failed to apply principles of proportionality and restraint.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in his Gladue analysis, the 12-year sentence remained fit given the egregious nature of the random attack and the need to prioritize denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant was convicted of ten commercial fraud and fraud-related offences and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, a restitution order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

He appealed his convictions, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and unreasonable trial delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

He also sought leave to appeal his sentence, challenging the admission of forensic accounting reports and the fitness of the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel, no s. 11(b) breach, and no error in the sentence.

The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a single judge's decision denying permission to file a factum of at least 125 pages.

The panel found that the motion judge carefully considered the request and identified the relevant considerations.

Finding no reason to interfere, the panel dismissed the motion and ordered the appellant to file its factum within 30 days, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and discharging a firearm after shooting the victim in the leg.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the victim's eyewitness identification and that several counts should be stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The Court of Appeal stayed five counts on consent based on Kienapple.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, as the trial judge properly instructed himself on the dangers of eyewitness identification and reasonably relied on corroborating circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and a partial license plate match.

The appellant appealed the 16-year period of parole ineligibility imposed for second degree murder.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to explain the high-end period and improperly treated the absence of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge adequately explained his decision and properly used the absence of remorse to distinguish the case from precedent, rather than as an aggravating factor.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed sentences totaling 32 months and a forfeiture order for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marijuana and cocaine.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by giving no weight to the guilty plea and the absence of a commercial motive.

The court reduced the sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking to 28 months, reduced the sentence for possession of marijuana to 10 days concurrent, and set aside the forfeiture order of $320.00 as there was no finding it was drug-related.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breach of probation, arguing that he did not make the phone call that led to the charges.

At the outset of the hearing, the appellant sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which was refused as the matter was peremptory and he had ample time to prepare.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility regarding the identity of the caller.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, mischief, criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation, arising from incidents involving his former girlfriend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions reasonable and supported by strong circumstantial evidence, including text messages.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to correct a Kienapple error, setting aside a duplicative conviction for uttering threats based on the same evidence.

The Court also set aside the victim surcharges as unconstitutional.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, brought a motion within his appeal for an order directing investigating officers and a forensic scientist to attend for cross-examination.

He sought to support a fresh evidence application regarding DNA records, alleging that the National DNA Data Bank possessed undisclosed original DNA profile data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable possibility that further relevant material existed, as required by the Trotta and Chaplin tests.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for breach of probation, appealed a Review Board decision continuing his conditional discharge and denying an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence that the appellant lacked insight, was likely to discontinue medication, and would experience worsening persecutory delusions leading to a risk of criminal behaviour.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a motion.

Costs were fixed and awarded to the responding party in the amount of $768.40, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant renewed his application for release pending appeal based on a material change in circumstances.

He raised a new ground of appeal arguing the trial judge erred in applying s. 276 of the Criminal Code to prevent cross-examination of the complainant regarding her prior experience as a sex worker in a human trafficking prosecution.

The motion judge found this new ground had a realistic prospect of success, elevating the importance of reviewability.

The appellant was granted release on conditions including house arrest and electronic surveillance.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching.

He argued the trial judge erred in evaluating credibility, treating the case as a credibility contest, finding a neighbour's evidence corroborative, and rendering inconsistent verdicts by acquitting him on a second sexual touching count.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments and concluding the verdicts were not inconsistent.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial dates were lost due to a lack of available judges, which the Crown argued was an 'exceptional circumstance' caused by two judges attending a compulsory education program and a third judge being unexpectedly ill.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that judicial education is a foreseeable systemic issue, not an exceptional circumstance.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove that the unexpected illness of one judge caused the delay in this specific case, as other priority matters were also not reached.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence following guilty pleas to conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and committing an offence for a criminal organization.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence, arguing his pleas were uninformed because he did not instruct his counsel to agree to the joint sentencing submission.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the appellant failed to prove his plea was uninformed, as circumstantial evidence and his own cross-examination contradicted his claims.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent solely to strike the victim fine surcharge.

The Court of Appeal previously awarded Traders General Insurance Company its costs of a panel review motion and invited written submissions on quantum.

Traders sought partial indemnity costs of $24,158.71, while the responding parties argued for $7,500 due to duplication of work from the initial motion.

The Court agreed there was some duplication and fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The parties were in a romantic relationship for nearly 14 years but maintained separate residences.

The trial judge found they were spouses under the Family Law Act and awarded the respondent indefinite spousal support based on the Rule of 65, along with substantial indemnity costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the parties were spouses, noting that maintaining separate residences does not preclude a finding of cohabitation.

However, the Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the parties began cohabiting in the first five months of their relationship, meaning the Rule of 65 was not met.

Spousal support was reduced to a 10-year duration.

The costs award was also reduced to partial indemnity, as the appellant's legal position and financial disclosure were deemed reasonable.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering his detention at a forensic psychiatric facility.

He argued the Board's finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that the Board breached its duty to inquire into his allegations of staff interference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, and that the appellant's complaints lacked the air of reality necessary to trigger the Board's duty to inquire.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for assault with a weapon and aggravated assault, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing her detention order.

She sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's decision reasonable, noting the appellant's severe and persistent mental illness, history of violence, treatment non-compliance, and substance use.

The Board correctly applied the legal tests to conclude she remained a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was the least onerous and appropriate disposition.