Eleanore A. Cronk

The respondent lessor sued the appellant lessee for damages arising from an oil spill from an above-ground storage tank.

The appellant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(a) to determine whether the commercial lease contained a covenant by the respondent to insure against the loss, which would bar the action.

The motion judge found no such covenant and allowed the action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the jurisprudence was unsettled and it was not plain and obvious whether the lease contained such a covenant.

The court set aside the motion judge's determination on the covenant issue, leaving it for trial, but upheld the dismissal of the appellant's motion to dismiss the action.

The appellant bank sought to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel a third-party mortgagee to provide a mortgage discharge statement for property owned by judgment debtors.

The appellant argued that a previous binding decision was decided per incuriam.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the motion judge's order was interlocutory, as the appellant could still seek to examine a representative of the third party under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant appealed convictions for multiple sexual offences against a child family member and also appealed sentence.

The court rejected the argument that the appellant's statement to police was involuntary, applying the common law confessions rule and holding that he understood the consequences of speaking to police; in any event, any error was harmless given other admissible admissions.

The court also rejected attacks on the complainant's credibility, finding no failure to consider motive, contradictions, or the absence of more serious allegations.

However, the court held that a five-year penitentiary sentence exceeded the appropriate appellate range on the facts and reduced the sentence to four years.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a trial judge's order making their child a Crown ward, without access, for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been apprehended after being found with rickets and testing positive for cannabinoids due to a marijuana grow-op in the home.

The parents subsequently abducted the child and were on the run for five months before being arrested.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the lower courts' application of the best interests test, no reasonable apprehension of bias, and no error in the admission of fresh evidence.

The husband appealed an equalization payment order, challenging the trial judge's findings on several disputed items in the net family property calculations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by denying the husband a deduction for property owned on the date of marriage, denying an exclusion for an inter vivos gift deposited into a joint bank account, and improperly valuing a vehicle acquired by gift.

The Court held that excluded property deposited into a joint account loses its exclusionary character only to the extent of the one-half interest presumed gifted to the spouse.

The equalization payment and costs awards were adjusted accordingly.

The appellant, a designated dangerous offender, appealed the sentence of indeterminate detention.

The appellant argued that a lapse in hospital supervision demonstrated the disposition was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's ability to sexually assault a child during a brief evasion of supervision confirmed the appropriateness of the indeterminate detention disposition.

The court concluded there was no reason to believe the appellant could be controlled in the community.

The appellant appealed a decision interpreting a varied trust deed.

The trust had been converted into a percentage trust (unitrust) to allow the trustee to invest for maximum returns.

Due to market downturns, the trustee had to sell capital assets to meet the mandatory minimum percentage distributions to the income beneficiaries, depleting the trust's capital.

The application judge found that the trust deed's terms made the percentage payments mandatory and ousted the trustee's duty to maintain an even hand between income and capital beneficiaries regarding distributions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly interpreted the trust deed based on its clear language and the surrounding factual matrix, including the prior court approval and tax rulings.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the admissibility of his statements on the basis of alleged Charter breaches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's findings of fact.

The court held it was open to the trial judge to find the appellant was not detained during the early part of the search, the police were not required to reiterate his s. 10(b) rights, and he did not invoke his rights at the station.

The appellant appealed his sentence of five and one half years imprisonment for criminal harassment, attempting to obstruct justice, and breaching a court order.

The appellant had a lengthy criminal record, including related offences against other women, and persisted in harassing the victim despite police warnings and court orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's sentence was fit, entitled to deference, and appropriately prioritized deterrence, denunciation, and the separation of the offender from society.

The appellant dentist appealed a permanent injunction enforcing a non-solicitation covenant in a management agreement with the respondent dental centre operator.

The appellant had copied patient lists before leaving the centre to start a new practice nearby.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent had a valid proprietary interest in the goodwill of its business model, the non-solicitation covenant was reasonable and did not offend the regulatory scheme for dentists, and any alleged fee-splitting arrangement was a matter for the regulator and did not invalidate the contract.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision directing the assessment of its legal accounts under the Solicitors Act, arguing the application judge erred in finding 'special circumstances' since the accounts were paid more than 12 months prior.

The respondents cross-appealed the denial of their costs for the application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the application judge's discretionary decisions on special circumstances and costs were entitled to deference and revealed no error in principle.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree and second-degree murder.

He appealed, arguing that the Crown's closing address was improper, that opinion and hearsay evidence from a police agent was wrongly admitted, and that the Crown's theory of motive was based on speculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's addendum to the jury charge effectively cured any defects in the Crown's closing address, the police agent's evidence was necessary narrative, and the Crown's theory of motive was based on proper inferences from the evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, and careless storage of a firearm, as well as his sentence of six years' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal regarding the robbery and careless storage charges, finding the verdict reasonable and rejecting arguments regarding police evidence and adverse inferences.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly considered the aggravating factors of a home invasion with a loaded firearm and the mitigating factors.

However, based on a Crown concession, the conviction for using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence was set aside as it was precluded by the robbery conviction.

The appellant leased a luxury vehicle from the respondent but returned it to a third-party dealership a few months later to purchase a different vehicle, claiming an oral agreement allowed him to do so.

The respondent sued for breach of the lease, claiming accelerated rent and damages for the loss on the sale of the vehicle.

The trial judge found the appellant liable, rejecting the argument that the dealership acted as the respondent's agent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no evidence of agency, the accelerated rent clause was an enforceable liquidated damages provision, and the respondent had reasonably mitigated its damages.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against his former litigation counsel for solicitor's negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant alleged his counsel wrongly consented to default judgment and failed to respond to the bank's counsel, leading to a receivership over his farm properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual conclusions—that the counsel acted diligently and was not negligent—were firmly anchored in the evidentiary record and free from palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding trial costs was also dismissed.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, appealed a child support variation order that awarded lump sum child support to the respondent and dismissed his request for a retroactive reduction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lump sum award and the dismissal of the retroactive reduction, noting the appellant's failure to pay support voluntarily, lack of financial disclosure, and protracted litigation.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in failing to consider the appellant's motion for leave to request access to the child.

The appeal was allowed only to permit the appellant to request leave to bring a motion for access, and was otherwise dismissed.

Following the successful appeal by the defendant overturning the certification of a proposed class action for unpaid overtime, the defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $300,000.

The plaintiff and the Law Foundation of Ontario argued that no costs or a maximum of $50,000 should be awarded, citing the novel legal issues and public interest nature of the case.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the novel points of law and access to justice considerations under section 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, but held that the Act does not insulate representative plaintiffs from adverse costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $60,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment dismissing his action based on a finding that an oral settlement had been reached prior to the commencement of the action.

The appellant argued that because the parties had not agreed on the form of release, no binding settlement was reached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that absent a contractual stipulation to the contrary, a settlement agreement implies a promise to furnish a release.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge improperly took judicial notice of male/female strength disparities, misapprehended evidence, and shifted the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) principles to assess credibility.

The Court noted that text messages and emails between the parties strongly corroborated the complainant's version of events and were tantamount to an acknowledgement of guilt.

The appellant, a licensed funeral director, appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Licence Appeal Tribunal's revocation of her licence for professional misconduct.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not deferring to the Discipline Committee's penalty decision and that there was no evidence her conduct endangered the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal hearing was de novo under the Funeral Directors and Establishments Act, requiring no deference, and that the Tribunal's findings of deceitful conduct were well-supported by the evidence.