Dennis R. O'Connor

The appellant appealed an order refusing leave to amend her Statement of Claim to add her insurer as a defendant.

The proposed amendment sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The motion judge held that while multiple applications for catastrophic impairment are not strictly precluded under s. 40(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a subsequent application under the same sub-paragraph requires evidence of a material change in circumstances.

Finding no such change, the motion judge refused the amendment.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's interpretation and found no error in her decision to refuse the amendment based on the record before her.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of abducting his two daughters in contravention of a custody order.

On appeal, he argued that he mistakenly believed the order was not a custody order, that the order was not actually a custody order, and that the trial judge failed to consider the defence of necessity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant did not testify to the mistaken belief, the order clearly governed the lawful care of the children, and the evidence did not support a defence of necessity.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and misapplied the W.(D.) framework.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by misapprehending the appellant's testimony regarding whether intercourse occurred and by requiring the appellant's evidence to establish a finding of fact rather than merely raising a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, arguing the trial judge erred in his Corbett ruling by admitting the appellant's full criminal record.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by admitting the record to show a disposition to violence and to balance the character of the complainant, whose character had not been attacked.

Finding a serious risk that the jury impermissibly used the record as evidence of violent disposition, the Court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of post-offence conduct and in her instructions to the jury regarding its use.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting the evidence was relevant and probative, and the jury charge properly alerted the jury to the limited use of the evidence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the sentence was upheld as fit.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible (NCR), appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a psychiatric hospital.

The amicus curiae argued the Board erred by failing to appoint counsel for the unrepresented appellant under s. 672.5(8) of the Criminal Code or by failing to provide adequate assistance during the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board properly considered whether the interests of justice required appointing counsel and reasonably concluded the appellant could participate fairly.

The Court also held that the Board's decision to continue the appellant's detention was reasonable and supported by evidence of his lack of insight, substance abuse history, and risk of violence.

The appellant tenant sought a declaration that it validly exercised its option to renew a commercial lease.

The respondent landlord refused the renewal, citing the tenant's failure to properly insure the premises in accordance with the lease.

Although the tenant eventually corrected the insurance defect, a slip-and-fall injury occurred on the property the day before the insurance was rectified, leading to a lawsuit against both parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the breach was not "spent" but subsisting, as the landlord faced an ongoing cause of action rooted in the tenant's failure to insure.

The appeal was dismissed, and relief from forfeiture was denied.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and noting that his conclusions were amply supported by the evidence, particularly the expert reports.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that a continuing power of attorney was invalid and that she was not a suitable guardian of property for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the lower court's findings and no error in the reasons for judgment.

The moving parties brought motions within an ongoing family law appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted an order directing the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child on the appeal.

The court set strict timelines for the filing of fresh evidence and factums to ensure the appeal could proceed on its scheduled dates, emphasizing the best interests of the child.

The respondent mother was ordered to permit the OCL reasonable access to the child.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for injuries suffered in a slip and fall on a municipal sidewalk following a major snow and ice storm.

The appellant argued the municipality was grossly negligent for failing to clear the sidewalk within 36 hours as per its policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that the municipality's response to the extraordinary storm was completely reasonable and did not amount to gross negligence under s. 44(9) of the Municipal Act.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault following an incident outside a bar where the complainant suffered a fractured cheekbone.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and reversed the burden of proof by drawing an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to locate an alternate suspect.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.D. framework and used common sense in assessing credibility without shifting the evidentiary burden.

The moving party, Maggie's: The Toronto Sex Workers' Action Project, brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the constitutionality of prostitution-related offences.

The moving party sought to raise a new challenge under s. 15 of the Charter and to argue that the legislation was impermissibly driven by moral views.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene on the s. 15 issue, finding that the evidentiary record was not developed for such a challenge and that allowing it would be unfair to the parties and delay the appeal.

The court also declined to grant separate intervener status on the morality issue, as it was already being raised by others, but permitted the moving party to join an existing intervener group.

The appellants, grandparents and legal guardians of the victims, appealed their convictions for second degree murder and forcible confinement, as well as their respective parole ineligibility periods of 22 and 20 years.

The victims, a five-year-old boy and his six-year-old sister, were subjected to prolonged starvation, abuse, and confinement in a squalid room, resulting in the boy's death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the trial judge properly inferred the requisite mens rea for murder from the prolonged course of conduct and correctly rejected the defence's expert evidence on diminished capacity.

The court also upheld the admission of police statements and found the confinement vastly exceeded any lawful parental authority.

The sentence appeals were dismissed, with the court affirming that the extreme cruelty and inhumanity of the offences justified the lengthy parole ineligibility periods.

The appellant pleaded guilty to driving without insurance and was fined the statutory minimum of $5,000.

After a complex procedural history involving a prior overturned conviction, the appellant appealed the fine, seeking a reduction or suspension due to financial hardship.

The Court of Appeal, with the Crown's consent, allowed the appeal and reduced the fine to $2,500, finding that exceptional circumstances existed under section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a young person charged with criminal negligence causing death while street racing.

The young person acted as the 'flag man' to start a street race that resulted in the death of one of the drivers.

The trial judge had granted a directed verdict of acquittal, finding the young person's participation insufficient to cause death.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to properly consider party liability under section 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Court clarified that the mens rea for an aider to criminal negligence causing death requires intentional assistance of the negligent conduct with knowledge of the principal's intentions, and objective foresight that bodily harm would result.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention with community privileges.

The respondents sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent events, which the Court of Appeal declined to admit to avoid delaying the hearing until the next annual review.

On the merits, the Court found the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety was supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon arising from a domestic stabbing.

The Crown conceded that the aggravated assault conviction should be stayed.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a limiting instruction on prior bad conduct and a W.D. instruction on the assault with a weapon charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the prior bad conduct evidence was directly relevant to the appellant's state of mind and the failure to give a W.D. instruction did not amount to misdirection.

The self-represented appellant appealed a decision regarding the conduct of a preliminary hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the reasons of the lower court judge.

The Court noted that the preliminary hearing judge was required to limit evidence to protect information covered by a prior order, and the manner in which this duty was performed fell within her jurisdiction and discretion.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision to sentence him as an adult and to impose a sentence of eight years, less credit for time served, to be served in a youth facility.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.