Dennis R. O'Connor

The Crown brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to answer questions of law and dismiss the appellant's counterclaim regarding an option agreement.

The motion judge answered the questions and dismissed the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by concluding no material facts were in issue.

The appellant had pleaded fundamental breach and bad faith, which were disputed by the Crown.

The Court held that it was not open to the motion judge to adjudicate disputed facts or questions of mixed law and fact without a proper evidentiary foundation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claims for negligent misrepresentation and intentional interference with economic relations arising from a timber allocation dispute under an Overlapping Licence Agreement.

The appellant also raised a new claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to hear the new fiduciary duty claim and upholding the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant did not reasonably rely on the alleged misrepresentations and that the respondent had no intention to injure the appellant's economic relations.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they wrongfully dismissed the respondent and engaged in shareholder oppression.

The trial judge ordered the appellants to purchase the respondent's shares valued as of September 30, 2005, and to pay him bonuses up to that date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent's conduct did not constitute cause for termination.

The Court also upheld the valuation date and bonus entitlement, noting the appellants' continued oppressive conduct and the ongoing benefits they received from the respondent's contributions.

The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his appeal from a motion judge's decision to accept jurisdiction over child custody and access under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent wife had fled Dubai with the child, alleging physical and mental abuse.

The motion judge found that the child would be at serious risk of harm if returned to Dubai.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of abuse and risk of harm, despite concluding that an Amnesty International report should not have been admitted into evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order declaring that they had repudiated Minutes of Settlement and lifting a stay in bankruptcy proceedings to allow the respondent's action to continue.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in making the declaration of repudiation because the relief was sought by motion rather than by originating process.

However, the Court upheld the order lifting the stay, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded there had been repudiation in the context of the motion to lift the stay.

The appeal was allowed in part to quash the declaration, but dismissed regarding the lifting of the stay.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, applied under s. 680(1) of the Criminal Code for a review of his detention order.

The court found no realistic likelihood that a panel would interfere with the lower court's decision, particularly regarding the tertiary ground for detention under s. 515(10)(c).

The court noted the strong circumstantial case, including motive, opportunity, and gunshot residue, as well as the egregious circumstances of the planned killing.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants' sailboat was seized and stored at the respondent's facility.

A bailiff provided a notice of lien that included amounts unrelated to the respondent's storage charges.

The application judge found the notice valid and awarded the respondent a lien and judgment for $29,920.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the notice was invalid because it overstated the redemption amount by including third-party debts.

Consequently, under s. 4(6) of the Repair and Storage Liens Act, the respondent's lien was limited to 60 days of storage charges ($1,200), and the judgment was set aside.

The Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the interpretation of the Construction Lien Act.

The proposed intervenor sought to provide evidence on the economic impact of the court's decision on the auto parts manufacturing industry.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed evidence and argument would not contribute to the understanding and determination of the legal issues under appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their insurance claim against Pembridge for late reporting and awarding only $4,000 in damages against their neighbours, the Aguiars, for nuisance causing water damage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against Pembridge, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the appellants breached the policy by reporting the claim four months late.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding damages against the Aguiars, finding the trial judge misapprehended evidence about standing water.

The Court reassessed damages at $12,500.

The appellant property owners appealed the dismissal of their action against a former property manager for alleged misappropriation of flea market revenues, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the evidence of misappropriation amounted only to suspicion and that the manager owed no duty of care regarding the flea market's operation.

The Court also affirmed the trial judge's discretionary refusal to order disgorgement of profits from the manager's undisclosed outside business activities, noting the employer suffered no damages and the manager had performed his duties satisfactorily.

Following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed costs submissions regarding the proceedings below.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the successful appellant $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, for the costs of the proceedings below.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the initial vehicle stop and subsequent search violated his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the stop was a lawful exercise of authority under s. 216 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The subsequent arrest was based on reasonable grounds of bail breach, and the search of the vehicle was justified as incident to arrest.

The court also rejected a s. 7 Charter argument regarding the reliability of CPIC information due to a lack of evidentiary foundation and notice.

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board denying a transfer from a maximum secure facility to a medium secure facility.

The appellant argued the Board erred by refusing to receive an expert report from a forensic psychologist due to late filing, which was caused by legal aid funding delays.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Board's refusal prevented it from conducting the mandatory inquiry under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, as the report was essential to assessing the appellant's risk and determining the least onerous disposition.

The appellant held a mortgage on a property and claimed an interest in insurance proceeds as collateral security.

The property was subsequently transferred to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the transfer satisfied the outstanding mortgage debt, thereby extinguishing the appellant's interest in the remaining insurance funds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that fees paid to the respondent bank were non-refundable valuation and processing fees, rather than refundable commitment fees.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the commitment letters, noting the appellants accepted the terms and paid the fees without reservation before refusing to proceed with the financing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent claimed disability benefits under a group policy issued to Jet Express Canada Inc. The trial judge found the respondent eligible, treating his employer, Jet Express Canada (2000) Inc., as the same entity as the policyholder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence that the two companies were related or that the respondent's employer was a participating employer under the policy.

The respondent's action was dismissed, and the appellant's counterclaim for reimbursement of benefits paid was allowed.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion to stay an order of a motion judge pending appeal.

The motion judge had refused to dissolve an injunction prohibiting protestors from occupying land, even though the land had been purchased by the Province of Ontario, until criminal contempt proceedings were disposed of.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the paragraph continuing the injunction, finding a serious issue as to its validity, irreparable harm to the public interest and land claim negotiations, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court declined to stay the paragraph referring the contempt matter to the Attorney General for carriage.

The appellant municipality entered into an agreement to sell surplus land to the respondent developer but failed to give public notice of the proposed sale as required by s. 268(3)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

When the municipality refused to close the transaction due to a zoning dispute, the developer sued for breach of contract.

The municipality argued the agreement was void because of its own failure to provide the statutory notice.

The Court of Appeal held that while the statute requires notice to be given before a binding agreement is signed, the failure to do so did not render the contract void or unenforceable, as the statute does not expressly invalidate such contracts and public policy does not favour voiding contracts for technical deficiencies.

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed the dismissal of its motion to annul the respondent's discharge from bankruptcy.

The appellant argued that a finding in a prior proceeding established that the respondent had fraudulently concealed assets.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that issue estoppel did not apply because fraud was not pleaded or necessarily bound up with the determination in the prior proceeding, and the respondent had no notice that fraud was an issue.

The court also held that a subsequent bankruptcy order against the respondent did not stay the appeal.

The respondent and other companies sued the appellant and other parties for defects in concrete used to build houses.

The respondent obtained summary judgment against the appellant on the contract claim for 'hard costs' of rebuilding the homes.

The appellant appealed, arguing that summary judgment would not simplify the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the contract claim was discrete from the tort claims and raised no genuine issue for trial, and that the summary judgment significantly simplified the proceedings.