David M. Paciocco

The appellants sought to appeal an order granting leave to the respondent bank to issue a writ of possession.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from final orders of an associate judge must be brought to the Divisional Court, and appeals from interlocutory orders must be brought to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The motion to quash was granted and costs were awarded to the respondent.

HSBC Bank Canada appealed a summary judgment decision in its favour against Antonio Guido on a personal loan guarantee.

Guido, the principal of Royal Canadian Bedrock Inc., had defaulted on a loan and was bound by a personal guarantee.

Guido's principal defence was that HSBC was bound by a side agreement allegedly engineered by Bruno Campoli, who was retained as an exclusive agent for both Guido and RCB.

Guido claimed Campoli and Michael Thomas & Associates Inc. were also acting as agents for HSBC and made misrepresentations that HSBC would not enforce the guarantee.

Guido also alleged a conspiracy to extract unlawful fees.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to HSBC and dismissed Guido's counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and no evidentiary support for Guido's allegations after five years of litigation.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and weapons-related offences.

The narcotics and weapons were found in her bedroom during a search warrant execution.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding she possessed the narcotics, suggesting a reasonable alternative inference that another individual in the room possessed them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and reasonably concluded the alternative theory was implausible.

The trial judge's credibility findings regarding the other individual's testimony were entitled to deference.

The applicant sought release pending appeal from convictions for two counts of indecent assault against the daughters of his then-partner, committed approximately 50 years ago when the victims were approximately 9 and 13 years old.

The applicant received a conditional sentence.

The Crown opposed the release application, arguing the applicant failed to establish that his grounds of appeal were not frivolous and that immediate enforcement was necessary to maintain public confidence given the seriousness of the offences.

The motion judge granted the application for release, finding that the applicant's ground of appeal regarding the trial judge's admission of extraneous bad character evidence clearly surpassed the "not frivolous" criterion and that the reviewability interest outweighed the immediate enforceability interest.

The appellants sought certification of a proposed class action on behalf of approximately 15,000 Canadian major junior hockey players from 1975 to the present, alleging systemic abuse including physical and sexual assaults, bullying, harassment, and hazing.

The class action named 78 defendants across four major junior hockey leagues and sought to hold the leagues and teams liable for systemic negligence in failing to adopt and enforce effective abuse-prevention policies.

The motion judge denied certification, finding the action unmanageable due to its unprecedented scope and complexity, and that no viable litigation plan had been presented.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: that they had disclosed a viable cause of action, that common issues existed, and that the class action was the preferable procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellants had viable claims and the motion judge applied an overly stringent test to the common issues requirement, the action was unmanageable and therefore not the preferable procedure.

The court emphasized that the proposed class action was far broader and more complex than previous systemic negligence class actions, involving 78 defendants across 13 jurisdictions, events spanning 50 years, and complex conflicts-of-law issues.

The appellants' attempt to fundamentally alter their case on appeal by dropping 74 defendants was rejected as impermissible.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple criminal offences involving domestic abuse and sexual assault of his former domestic partner.

He appealed his convictions on two grounds: (1) that the jury charge on myths and stereotypes was imbalanced and insufficient, and (2) that the jury instruction on prior consistent statements was inadequate.

He also sought leave to appeal his five-year sentence for sexual assault, arguing it was excessive and based on a misapprehension of evidence regarding his conduct in other relationships.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge, while not perfect, was functional and equipped jurors to decide the case according to law.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the five-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the severity of the offence and the offender's moral culpability.

The appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a trial by judge and jury, and was sentenced to five and one-half years' imprisonment.

She appealed her conviction on four grounds: that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that character could not be considered; that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider smaller quantities of a different drug; that the trial judge failed to provide a corrective instruction after the Crown's closing address; and that the trial judge erred in his instruction regarding the mistake of fact defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and also dismissed the leave to appeal sentence application.

The appellant, a bar manager, was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism after sexually assaulting a female employee in the bar basement while intentionally having the incident recorded by a security camera.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) the trial judge over-relied on the complainant's demeanor when assessing credibility; (2) the trial judge misapplied the adopted admissions rule by relying on text messages between the appellant and his co-accused; and (3) the trial judge misapplied the doctrine of reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for repayment of money transferred to the respondents over a period of years.

The appellants alleged the transfers were loans and investments, including a $100,000 investment in real estate that appreciated significantly.

The respondents contended the transfers were payments for room and board and other expenses for the appellants' daughter.

The trial judge dismissed all claims and ordered costs against the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's treatment of evidence, her dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, or her application of the Limitations Act.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition dated January 29, 2025, concerning whether the Board erred in declining to add a community living clause to a detention order.

The appellant argued that the majority of the Board focused exclusively on public safety and dismissed the attending psychiatrist's opinion that the clause would be therapeutically beneficial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's majority was entitled to determine that adding a community living clause would be therapeutically harmful on balance in the specific circumstances of the case, notwithstanding the psychiatrist's contrary opinion.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and related offences for firing shots at a female acquaintance, striking her twice.

The sole issues at trial were the identity of the shooter and intent to kill.

The trial judge rejected direct identification evidence and limited-weight photo identification evidence, instead relying almost entirely on circumstantial evidence including GPS data from the suspect vehicle, security camera footage with timestamps, and DNA evidence.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the trial judge erred in accepting the accuracy of security camera timestamps without proper authentication and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no legal error in the trial judge's application of the law regarding measurement devices in common usage and concluding that the verdict was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for serious sexual offences committed in 1986 against two women.

The Crown's similar-fact application was granted at trial.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings regarding lost evidence, arguing that the loss of the Murdock investigative file constituted unacceptable negligence and that the trial judge failed to adequately address the integrity of the justice system regarding conceded negligent loss of evidence in the English file.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the governing legal framework, made findings supported by the record, and exercised her remedial discretion judiciously.

The court held that the trial judge's conclusion that the purging of the Murdock brief in accordance with retention policy was not unacceptable negligence was reasonable, and that even if error existed, it was harmless as the trial judge proceeded to a full remedial analysis.

Regarding the English file, the court found the trial judge adequately addressed the integrity issue and that proportionate alternatives to a stay of proceedings were appropriate.

The appellant was convicted of possessing cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime following a police investigation that began with a confidential informant tip.

The appellant appealed on grounds that the police violated his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and that evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no violation of sections 8 or 9, acknowledging a section 10(b) breach but finding the evidence admissible under section 24(2) analysis.

The appellant appealed a costs award of $300,000 made by the trial judge following a motor vehicle accident case.

The respondent was struck by a vehicle driven by the appellant while crossing a pedestrian crossing.

After a three-week jury trial, the jury awarded the respondent $24,166 in general damages and $26,000 in special damages for past income loss, with a net recovery of $16,160.50 after accounting for contributory negligence and statutory deductibles.

The trial judge awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the respondent was more successful at trial.

The appellant argued the costs award was wholly disproportionate to the modest recovery and that the trial judge erred in finding the respondent was more successful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the costs award.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing that the trial judge's jury charge relating to after-the-fact conduct evidence failed to properly equip the jury to decide the case according to law and the evidence.

The Crown presented extensive evidence of the appellant's conduct in the hours following the killing, including exchanges with neighbours, apparent attempts at concealment, admissions to friends, and various activities at commercial establishments.

The trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction restricting the jury's use of this evidence solely to the issue of intoxication and rational mindset, instead inviting the jury to consider it broadly in determining the appellant's mens rea for murder.

The trial judge also failed to address the risks of consciousness of guilt reasoning and invited the jury to infer callous disregard as evidence of intent to kill.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding three reversible errors in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown’s appeal from a stay of proceedings entered after a trial judge found that correctional officers, including Officer Warburton, used excessive force and then colluded to cover up the incident by filing false reports and giving misleading testimony.

The trial judge found a violation of the respondent’s Charter rights and determined that a stay was the only appropriate remedy to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s findings were supported by the evidence, her legal analysis was correct, and her remedy was justified in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a conditional stay of a summary judgment and writ of possession in a mortgage enforcement action.

The moving parties, unrepresented at trial, sought a stay pending appeal after summary judgment was granted against them and a writ of possession issued.

The court found that while the original grounds of appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried, a new ground—whether the summary judgment process was appropriate given evidence of conflict of interest and lack of independent legal advice—did raise a serious question.

The court held that denying a stay could cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The stay was granted until July 25, 2025, with a further extension conditional on amending the grounds of appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted William Craig Robson’s motion for release pending appeal and a partial stay of his driving prohibition after his conviction for dangerous driving causing death.

The court found that the grounds of appeal were not frivolous and raised significant legal issues, including the definition of “public” under s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code and causation in the context of dangerous off-road activities.

The court concluded that Robson did not pose a risk to public safety and that his continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

This endorsement addresses a motion for costs brought by the Toronto Police Service Board following the abandonment of an appeal by Gary Curtis and Tanya Rebello.

The court found that the Board was entitled to costs, as its responding materials were served before the Notice of Abandonment was filed.

The court rejected the applicants' arguments regarding entitlement and quantum of costs, and awarded the Board $19,365.37, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder in 2002, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued that the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety and in failing to mandate that the hospital actively seek community housing for him.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the Board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the Board erred by not including a formal condition in its disposition requiring the hospital to exercise all due diligence in securing community housing.