David Watt

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge declining to reinstate the proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $750.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearms offences after police found guns in a duffle bag at his mother's house.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by admitting a recanting witness's videotaped statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, by improperly using his pre-trial silence to reject his testimony, and by entering multiple convictions for the same delict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the convictions, finding the hearsay statement met threshold reliability and the trial judge did not rely on pre-trial silence.

However, the court applied the Kienapple principle to enter conditional stays on several duplicate counts.

The appellants, two drug dealers, were convicted of first-degree murder after killing a customer who had ripped them off.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on constructive first-degree murder, the application of the W. (D.) formula, and the Vetrovec caution.

One appellant also argued the trial judge failed to instruct on the defence of accident and the evidentiary value of an unaccepted guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the jury instructions and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant challenged convictions arising from a domestic attempted murder shooting and sought leave to appeal a 22-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly admitted prior discreditable conduct, delivered an unfair jury charge, and wrongly answered a jury question on reasonable doubt.

Although the recharge on reasonable doubt contained error, the court applied the curative proviso because the Crown’s circumstantial case was overwhelming and the alternative suspect theory lacked evidentiary support.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence was held to fall within the applicable range for domestic attempted murder involving significant aggravating factors.

The purchaser appealed a trial decision finding that open web steel joists were not part of the structural steel included in an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by relying on extraneous documents to interpret the agreement.

The Amending Agreement and the documents specifically referenced within it, including the purchase order and structural drawings, clearly included open web steel joists.

As the vendor failed to provide the joists, they breached the agreement, and the funds held in trust were ordered returned to the purchaser.

The plaintiff, a black man, sued his former employer for constructive dismissal, alleging a poisoned work environment due to racism after a co-worker refused to attend mandatory training with him.

The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the co-worker's refusal was racially motivated and that the employer's response was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions regarding racism and a poisoned work environment were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The Court held that a single incident did not objectively establish a poisoned workplace, and the employer's actions in investigating the complaint and offering alternative positions did not constitute a repudiation of the employment contract.

The moving parties (class action plaintiffs) brought a motion to quash appeals filed by the respondent objectors.

The court found that the appellants did not have a right of appeal under s. 30(3) of the Class Proceedings Act because they were not parties to the class proceeding.

Furthermore, they did not meet the requirements of s. 30(5) as they had not obtained leave to act as a representative party for an appeal from a judgment on common issues or an aggregate assessment.

The appeals were quashed and the motion to act as representative plaintiff was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and assault with intent to resist arrest following a physical altercation with police during his arrest.

At trial, a blended voir dire and trial was held to address the appellant's section 7 Charter application alleging excessive police force.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter application and immediately convicted the appellant without separately analyzing whether the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to separate the burdens of proof for the Charter application (balance of probabilities) and the trial proper (beyond a reasonable doubt).

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and administering a stupefying substance, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's testimony on the basis that he tailored his evidence to fit arguments raised during a voir dire regarding his police statement.

The Court of Appeal held that this reasoning improperly turned the appellant's statutory right to be present at his trial against him, undermining his right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring him to a medium secure all-male unit at Brockville Mental Health Centre.

Brockville also appealed the disposition, arguing the Board failed to make sufficient inquiries about the suitability of the transfer given its waiting list.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the Board had sufficient information to make its disposition and properly considered the appellant's history, including the facts underlying a recent sexual assault acquittal, to determine the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for common law severance damages for wrongful dismissal.

He argued that a clause in his employment contract was void because it attempted to contract out of the Employment Standards Act regarding the inclusion of bonuses in termination pay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the clause, read in context, preserved the appellant's statutory entitlements.

The appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal on costs were both dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order relating to two children.

The Court of Appeal found that the order did not finally resolve the issues between the parties and was therefore not a final order.

As the order was interlocutory, jurisdiction lay with the Divisional Court.

The appeal was quashed.

Invesco sought leave to appeal orders sanctioning a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization under the CCAA and approving a settlement that released Ernst & Young LLP from claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals failed to meet the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings.

The appeal of the Sanction Order was moot, and the issues regarding the third-party release in the Settlement Order were governed by the court's prior decision in ATB Financial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, assault, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and weapons dangerous arising from an incident in a crack house.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended evidence, and rendered inconsistent verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons met the required threshold, adequately addressed credibility, and demonstrated a careful consideration of the evidence for each count.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving a 12-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) test, assessing credibility, and relying on demeanour evidence.

He also argued the trial judge failed to give credit for his restrictive bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and demeanour.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately treated the restrictive bail conditions as a mitigating factor in the global sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of 26 pounds of raw marijuana found in the trunk of his car.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and search based on an officer smelling raw marijuana, and that the trial judge failed to reconcile conflicting officer testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in relying on the smell evidence to establish grounds for arrest.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in rejecting a conditional sentence given the appellant's antecedents and the quantity of marijuana.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the evidence and improperly drew an adverse inference from his right to silence upon arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments were well-reasoned and that the trial judge permissibly considered the inconsistency between the appellant's statement to police and his trial testimony.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

He argued that the information to obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked sufficient reliable evidence and that the trial judge provided inadequate reasons for conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ITO contained sufficient information from confidential informants and police surveillance to justify the warrant.

The Court also held that despite the trial judge's brevity and misapprehension of a defence concession, the reasons were sufficient for appellate review given the uncontroverted evidence of trafficking indicia.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was firmly rooted in the evidence, reasonable, untainted by legal error, and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.