Eleanore A. Cronk

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted in a simplified proceeding under Rule 76, arguing it was not an efficient and proportionate way to deal with the issues.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that summary judgment is available in Rule 76 actions and the appellant had failed to file any responding evidentiary materials to challenge the respondent's straightforward collection claim.

The appellant, an Ontario-based multi-national enterprise, appealed a motion judge's finding that Ontario law governed its contract with the respondent, an Alberta corporation.

The contract, which lacked a choice of law clause, was for the design and sale of a fryer and oven system that allegedly caused a fire at the respondent's plant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's application of the 'closest and most real connection' test, agreeing that the nature, subject matter, and place of performance of the contract favoured Ontario, as the system was designed and its components ordered there.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for fraud and breach of contract related to a carpet supply and installation contract with a public housing corporation.

The trial judge found the appellants engaged in a deliberate scheme of falsifying invoices and supplying substandard materials, awarding compensatory damages, punitive damages, and full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on liability, compensatory damages, and costs, confirming that a contractual stop-payment clause was not a penalty or liquidated damages provision.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the joint and several nature of the punitive damages award and the punitive damages awarded against the deceased employee's estate, leaving the principal appellant solely liable for the punitive damages.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that set aside an Environmental Review Tribunal's revocation of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm project.

The Tribunal had found the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the Blanding's turtle due to increased road mortality.

The Court of Appeal held the Divisional Court erred in its standard of review application, finding the Tribunal's decision on serious and irreversible harm was reasonable despite lacking precise numerical data.

However, the Court of Appeal agreed the Tribunal erred in revoking the approval without allowing the parties to make submissions on the appropriate remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to determine the remedy.

The appellant law firm performed collection work for the respondent bank under a written agreement.

Following the termination of the agreement, the parties disputed the interpretation of a provision regarding invoicing for services performed up to the termination date.

The motion judge agreed with the respondent's interpretation and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or extricable question of law in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract.

The court also held that the general duty of honesty in contractual performance recognized in Bhasin v. Hrynew did not affect the interpretation.

The Crown sought leave to appeal a Summary Conviction Appeal Court decision regarding whether breath tests were administered 'as soon as practicable'.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the lower courts properly applied the established legal test to the specific facts of the case, which involved delay associated with allowing the detainee to contact a parent.

The court concluded the appeal did not raise a question of law alone of significance beyond the immediate case.

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 appellant appealed his drug convictions, arguing they were unreasonable because there was no evidence of where in his residence the drugs were found.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime, finding sufficient evidence to support the inference of possession.

However, the court quashed the convictions relating to various pills, holding that without evidence of where the pills were discovered in the house, it was unreasonable to infer possession based solely on the appellant's residency.

The appellants were convicted of numerous fraud-related offences arising from a widespread credit and debit card skimming scheme operated through a storefront business.

Three of the appellants were also convicted of participating in and committing offences for the benefit of a criminal organization.

On appeal, they challenged the admission of wiretap evidence, the finding that they constituted a criminal organization, and various individual convictions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the wiretap authorization was properly granted and the group met the statutory definition of a criminal organization.

The sentence appeals of the two principal offenders were dismissed, while the sentences of the two lesser offenders were varied in part.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to two years less a day for aiding and abetting by renting a car used in the offence.

She appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences from circumstantial evidence were reasonable.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in treating the home invasion aspect as an aggravating factor when there was no evidence the appellant knew it would involve a home invasion.

The sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and appealed a hybrid detention disposition made by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued that the Board erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and in failing to grant an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's finding of significant risk was supported by the evidence, including the unanimous opinion of the treatment team.

The Court also rejected the appellant's procedural fairness arguments regarding the late delivery of a hospital report and alleged bias.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his action against multiple defendants under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating the appeal itself may be dismissed on similar grounds.

The Court found the appellant's pleading contained no intelligible claims against the respondents and sought non-justiciable relief regarding the redesign of Ontario's social welfare and legal services systems.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference involving two young children.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury against using evidence relating to one complainant as propensity evidence for the other, and by admitting hearsay statements.

The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the hearsay statements but held that the failure to provide a limiting instruction on cross-count propensity reasoning was a fatal error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his former landlord for unlawful eviction.

The appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding the materials were available during the original motion.

The Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the action was an attempt to re-litigate issues previously decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board, Divisional Court, and Small Claims Court, and that the matters fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

At the close of the Crown's case, the trial judge initiated an in-chambers discussion with counsel, in the absence of the accused, suggesting a plea bargain to a lesser offence.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding this meeting and held that the discussion violated the accused's right to be present during his trial under s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the trial judge's actions compromised trial fairness and the presumption of innocence, rendering the curative proviso inapplicable.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed an order striking their claim against the respondent.

The corporate appellant's claim was struck because its corporate charter had been revoked when the action was commenced, making it a nullity, and the limitation period expired before it was revived.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the individual appellants' claims, finding that the motion judge erred by striking the entire action based on an improper post-hearing communication from the respondent's counsel without giving the appellants an opportunity to make submissions.

The appellant estate appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against the respondent for occupation rent and nursing care expenses.

The estate alleged the respondent unlawfully refused to allow the deceased to return to the matrimonial home after a hospitalization.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no evidence of an unlawful refusal; rather, the respondent, due to her own advanced age and frail health, was simply unable to provide the necessary care.

Furthermore, the claim for medical expenses was barred by the parties' marriage contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their personal injury claim against the Toronto Transit Commission after a slip and fall at a transit station.

The motion judge found no objective evidence of a hazard on the stairs and concluded the TTC met its statutory duty of care as an occupier.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment test or his reliance on the uncontradicted evidence regarding the condition of the stairs and the TTC's maintenance practices.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his claim and awarding $48,000 in costs to the respondent.

The dismissal resulted from the appellant's persistent and deliberate failure to comply with court orders regarding disclosure and production obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere, noting the appellant's repeated flouting of court orders and failure to comply with a 'last chance' order.

The court rejected the suggestion that the self-represented appellant was treated unfairly, noting he had threatened opposing counsel with death.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.