Doherty J.A.

The accused, a former army reservist, shot and killed a prowler who was breaking into his truck.

At trial, the accused claimed self-defence, arguing his military training led him to proactively confront the threat and that he believed the prowler was reaching for a gun.

The jury acquitted the accused of second-degree murder.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider the accused's conduct leading up to the shooting when assessing the reasonableness of his actions.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action ordering them to pay over $626,000 and deliver possession of a mortgaged rental property.

The appellants failed to appear for the appeal, which proceeded on written materials after multiple adjournment requests were denied.

The appellants argued the second mortgage was void ab initio because the respondent allegedly knew the first mortgage was in default or failed to conduct due diligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was the appellants' responsibility to ensure the first mortgage was in good standing.

The appellant, a commercial truck driver, appealed his conviction for criminal negligence causing death and his sentence of five years' imprisonment and a fifteen-year driving prohibition.

The appellant had fallen asleep at the wheel, drifted into oncoming traffic, and caused a fatal head-on collision after falsifying his driving logs to avoid rest obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the elements of the offence and the distinction from dangerous driving causing death.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's deliberate disregard for safety rules and the need for specific deterrence.

The accused was committed for trial on a charge of second degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

On a certiorari motion, a Superior Court judge quashed the committal and substituted a committal for manslaughter, finding insufficient evidence of the requisite intent for murder.

The Crown appealed the quashing, and the accused appealed, arguing he should have been discharged entirely.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed the accused's appeal, holding that the Superior Court judge exceeded her jurisdiction on a certiorari application by weighing the evidence and failing to recognize that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury could infer the intent for murder.

The committal for second degree murder was restored.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by the appellant municipality.

Based on the agreement of the parties, the court awarded the appellant $8,000 for the costs of the appeal.

The court also awarded the appellant $50,000 for the costs of the underlying application, as submitted by the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they were engaged in a joint venture involving repeated and dangerous violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly instructed herself on the law of joint venture tort liability and that her finding was reasonable on the evidence.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a drug-related offence.

The Crown's case relied on the appellant placing a bag in a car, which was later found to contain drugs after being in a motel room for over two hours.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable, as there was no evidence regarding who had access to the bag while it was in the motel room.

The trial judge erred by looking for evidence that the contents had changed, rather than requiring the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had not changed.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge should have granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody rather than 1.5:1.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion and appropriately considered the appellant's repeated serious misconduct while in custody.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in calculating credit for pre-sentence custody.

Following the release of the Supreme Court's decision in Summers, the parties agreed the appellant was entitled to 45 months' credit rather than the amount initially granted.

The Court of Appeal varied the sentence to 15 months to reflect the correct pre-sentence custody credit against the agreed-upon five-year total sentence.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's order was reasonable and that the Board did not misapprehend evidence regarding cultural reactions to mental illness or the attitude of the appellant's parents toward his illness.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding they could not rely on the 'resale' exemption from disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the franchisor was not merely a passive participant in the transaction, as they had met with the prospective franchisees multiple times, considered a new franchise agreement, and required an acknowledgement that limited the franchisees' rights.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her sentence and dangerous offender designation, arguing that the public could be adequately protected by a determinate sentence made consecutive to her lengthy remanet.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's violent behaviour could not be controlled in the community was supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision that found no arguable issue for trial regarding its claims for equitable and legal set off.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the equitable set off claims lacked the requisite close connection, and the legal set off claims were either for unliquidated damages or factually complex amounts not readily ascertainable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its claim on the basis that it was barred by a broadly worded release from a 1996 action settlement.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim related to the lands referred to in the release.

Furthermore, the court found that the appellant was an affiliate or associate of the releasing party due to the common control of both entities by the same individual.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.