David M. Paciocco

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his motion to set aside final family law orders and requiring him to obtain leave before bringing further motions until outstanding costs were paid.

He also sought to appeal a $20,000 costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant misread the leave order and failed to identify any errors by the motion judge.

The Court awarded the respondent $10,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the appellant's improper conduct, and directed that the costs order is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him in civil contempt for breaching a Mareva injunction and sentencing him to 90 days' incarceration, as well as orders for equalization and support.

The appellant argued the contempt proceedings were procedurally unfair and the sentence was disproportionate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge provided adequate assistance to the self-represented appellant, correctly applied the test for civil contempt, and reasonably imposed a custodial sentence given the appellant's chronic non-disclosure, deliberate obfuscation, and flagrant disregard for court orders over 15 years of family litigation.

The moving party, a former real estate broker whose licence was revoked, sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had previously declined to conduct a judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his appeal of a refusal to reinstate his licence, which occurred after he walked out of the tribunal hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the proposed appeal was entirely without merit and the moving party's explanations for the delay were not credible.

The moving parties, who were previously declared vexatious litigants, brought multiple motions within an appeal seeking broad procedural and substantive relief.

The motions were brought without obtaining leave from a Superior Court judge, as required by the vexatious litigant order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, holding that while a vexatious litigant order can be appealed without leave, any motions brought within that appeal proceeding still require leave.

The self-represented moving party sought various forms of relief relating to her appeal of orders directing the partition and sale of two properties and a reference for an accounting.

The motion judge dismissed requests to stay the proceedings, expedite the appeal, and intervene in the ongoing reference, noting that several of the orders appealed likely fell outside the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction.

However, the motion judge granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal, finding that the delay was explained by the moving party's difficulties navigating the rules and that the interests of justice favoured allowing the appeal to proceed.

The moving parties, whose property was placed in receivership, sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal an approval and vesting order, as well as a stay of that order pending appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the extension request, finding the moving parties failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay, the delay prejudiced the receiver, and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Consequently, the motion for a stay pending appeal was also dismissed, as there was no active appeal before the court and the balance of convenience favored the receiver.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding their respective appeals of a final family law order.

Both parties sought to dispense with the requirement to order and file trial transcripts due to alleged impecuniosity.

The motion judge dismissed these requests, finding the transcripts were necessary to adjudicate the appeals, which challenged the trial judge's factual findings and procedural fairness.

The applicant also moved for a stay of the child support orders pending appeal.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had sole care of the dependent children.

The court ordered the appeals to be grouped and provided directions for sharing the cost of a consolidated transcript record.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit and retaining an electronics supervision clause.

The appellant argued the disposition was not the least onerous and restrictive option and that the Board improperly rejected a joint submission to remove the electronics clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the Board's decisions reasonable given the appellant's recent elopements and worsening auditory hallucinations.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to reinstate clauses for indirectly supervised and accompanied privileges, which the Board had mistakenly removed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault against a resident of a group home who had Down syndrome.

At trial, the Crown successfully applied to admit the complainant's hearsay statements to personal support workers without calling the complainant to testify, and without expert evidence that testifying would cause trauma.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in concluding the hearsay evidence was necessary without first hearing directly from the complainant or receiving expert evidence regarding potential trauma.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for $3.76 million after the respondent investors were defrauded in a second mortgage scheme.

The investment funds were misappropriated by employees of a law firm acting as agents for the appellants' gas station development project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment framework, his conclusion that an agency relationship existed, or his imposition of joint and several liability based on findings that the defendants worked together to deprive the investors of their funds.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs award was also denied.

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against two sisters.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cross-count similar fact evidence and prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the similar fact evidence had significant probative value that outweighed its prejudicial effect, and properly admitted the prior consistent statements under the narrative exception to explain the delay in reporting.

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding her liable for the respondent's catastrophic brain injury following an acute asthmatic attack.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the standard of care by delaying intubation and failing to call for help sooner.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on a critical care note containing double hearsay and opinion evidence regarding the respondent's hypoxemia, and erred in his causation analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the note was admissible under the business records exception and as a party admission, and that the trial judge's causation findings were supported by the expert evidence.

The appeal concerned whether post-closing transactions triggered accelerated earn-out payment obligations under a share purchase agreement.

The court deferred to the application judge’s contractual interpretation and factual findings, concluding no trigger event requiring immediate full earn-out payment had been established.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought panel review after a chambers judge refused to lift an automatic stay pending appeal.

Applying the deferential review framework for s. 7(5) CJA panel review, the court found no error in principle or unreasonable result and dismissed the review motion.

The self-represented appellant sought to pursue a new action after prior proceedings and appeals concerning related allegations had concluded.

The court held the proposed appeal was a collateral attack and abuse of process and summarily dismissed it under r. 2.1.01.

The appellant challenged dismissal of a motion for leave to issue a third-party claim, arguing limitation issues were wrongly decided.

The court held the motion judge made no error in finding the claim was statute-barred and rejected arguments premised on separate proceedings and later party discussions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties (Vendors) sought to lift an automatic stay of an order requiring the responding party (Purchaser) to pay €855,155 pending the hearing of an application regarding an earn-out payment dispute.

The Purchaser had appealed the order, triggering an automatic stay under Rule 63.01(1).

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to lift the stay under Rule 63.01(5), finding that the Purchaser's financial instability created a material risk of non-payment, which constituted financial hardship for the Vendors.

To balance the risk to the Purchaser, the stay was lifted on the condition that the Vendors pay an equivalent amount into court as security pending the appeal.

The respondents and third parties brought a motion for security for costs against the appellants pending an appeal of a summary judgment order in a mortgage enforcement action.

The motion judge found that the appeal had a low prospect of success and that the appellants were unlikely to pay a costs award, satisfying the 'other good reason' requirement under Rule 61.06(1)(c).

The court ordered the appellants to post security for costs, though the amount for the plaintiff was reduced as a party should not have to give security simply to defend an order obtained below.