Eleanore A. Cronk

The appellant pleaded guilty to uttering a threat to cause bodily harm to his common-law partner and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

At trial, the unrepresented appellant was sentenced without the trial judge allowing a female witness (either the complainant or her sister) to speak on his behalf.

The Court of Appeal found that fairness required the trial judge to hear from the witness, which may have assisted in assessing the seriousness of the offence.

The Court held that the 18-month sentence was out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and reduced the sentence to time served (over five and a half months), leaving the probation order in place.

The appellants were convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a police search of an apartment and a vehicle.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, including the validity of the search warrant, jury instructions on the burden of proof (the W.(D.) instruction), and the reasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the first appellant, finding the jury instructions adequate and the verdict reasonable based on the evidence found in his vehicle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal of the second appellant, concluding that the verdict was unreasonable as there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the drugs found in the apartment, especially given his acquittal on the trafficking charge.

The young person pleaded guilty to assault simpliciter after intervening in a confrontation between his friend and a homeowner.

The trial judge imposed a disposition of 45 days secure custody and 15 months' probation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to explore alternative dispositions short of custody for a first-time young offender.

The appeal was allowed, and the disposition was varied to time served, with the probation order remaining in place.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed significant neurological, psychological, and physical injuries.

At trial, the jury awarded $30,000 for general damages and $48,000 for past lost income, rejecting claims for future loss.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the 'material contribution' test for contributory causation.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in his instruction by not referring to the appellant's overall post-accident condition, the error occasioned no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given the evidence and the jury's verdict.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, including clear expert opinion on continuing danger, risk assessment, and the appellant's ability to manage his behaviour, to support the Board's decision.

The appellant appealed the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated August 7, 2002.

The Court of Appeal found no basis on the record to conclude that the Board's decision was unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of sexual touching and sexual assault against his 13-year-old sister-in-law and sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment followed by three years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by considering his youth record for sexual assault, contrary to s. 45 of the Young Offenders Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed this was an error in principle.

However, upon reassessing the sentence, the Court found that actual imprisonment remained the most appropriate disposition given the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision striking out her statement of claim against the respondents for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and other claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the pleading failed to set out the necessary elements of the asserted claims and lacked sufficient material facts, relying instead on conjecture and conclusions of law.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession over certain property areas, including a buffer zone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's acceptance of evidence regarding the area south of Tree Line One was fatal to that part of the claim.

Regarding the western buffer zone, the Court held it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellants' use did not exclude the true owner's proprietary use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals, stating they were in entire agreement with the reasons of the lower court judge.

The respondent did not seek costs.

The appellants appealed an order of Lane J. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substance to it because a subsequent, unappealed order by Backhouse J. superseded the order of Lane J. The Court noted that the superseding order did not eliminate the appellants' bad faith or punitive damage claims.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing an agreement.

The appellants conceded there was an agreement on all essential terms.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge reasonably and properly applied the evidence relating to the territorial ambit of the restrictive covenant to resolve the one outstanding issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant was convicted of multiple drug trafficking offences and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

Much of the evidence was derived from wiretaps.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Garofoli application to exclude the wiretap evidence under s. 8 of the Charter, alleging the supporting affidavit was misleading.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the police acted in good faith and that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The 15-year-old first offender appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to give apparent weight to the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation.

Noting that the appellant had completed the secure custody portion of his disposition and done well, the Court granted leave to appeal, struck out the open custody portion, and maintained the probation term.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge on three issues of liability and the allocation of costs.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error on the liability issues and no error in principle in the discretionary allocation of costs.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

Following the death of their daughter in a motor vehicle accident, the parents applied for death benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer paid a single $10,000 benefit to the father as the principal financial supporter, but denied the mother's claim for an additional $10,000 as the principal caregiver.

The Divisional Court held that multiple payments were required.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the modern rule of statutory interpretation and the legislative context of the SABS indicate that only a single $10,000 death benefit is payable under s. 25(2)(5)(i), which may be paid jointly to the principal financial supporter and caregiver.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction on three grounds, primarily arguing that the trial judge's jury charge on reasonable doubt was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that although the charge did not strictly comply with Lifchus, the jury would not have misunderstood the standard of proof given the W.(D.) instruction on the alibi defence.

The court also found no merit to the argument that cross-examination was improperly curtailed.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding whether their trial should be heard by a judge rather than a justice of the peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the statute recognizes complex cases may be heard by a judge, it does not require it, making the decision a matter of discretion.

The court found no reviewable error in the lower courts' decisions.

The appellant, a charity licensed to sell break open lottery tickets (BOTs), brought a class action seeking restitution of a provincial administration fee, arguing it was an unconstitutional indirect tax.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment to strike the restitution claim, adducing evidence that the fee was borne by consumers through a reduced prize board, not by the charities.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the appellant failed to adduce evidence showing a genuine issue for trial regarding who bore the burden of the fee or its entitlement to restitution.

The respondent was rendered a partial quadriplegic after diving off a groyne into shallow water at a public beach.

The trial judge apportioned liability 75% to the respondent and 25% to the appellant city for failing to post warning signs.

The city appealed, arguing the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error regarding the location of warning signs at another beach and erred in finding a duty to warn and causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the city breached its duty of care as an occupier and that a warning sign would have deterred the respondent.