Eleanore A. Cronk

The plaintiffs appealed a Divisional Court decision that restored a master's order requiring them to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of review on an appeal from a master is the same as from a judge, as set out in Housen v. Nikolaisen.

The court found no basis to interfere with the master's analysis of the evidence or application of principles regarding security for costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and in refusing to allow him to show his arms to demonstrate he had no tattoos.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge fully appreciated the evidence, acknowledged the complainant's lies, and gave adequate reasons for accepting her testimony.

The court also held that the ruling on demonstrative evidence was a matter of the trial judge's discretion.

The respondent bank sought a writ of possession for mortgaged residential premises.

The application judge granted the writ, finding the appellants were occupants and the appellant wife was the beneficial owner.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the order, finding the bank's application was deficient because it failed to join the named mortgagor as a party and lacked the necessary documentary evidence to establish its right to possession.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside without prejudice to the bank's right to pursue further remedies.

The appellant, who was nearly 18 at the time of the offence, was convicted of second degree murder for the brutal killing of an elderly neighbour during a planned robbery.

The trial judge sentenced the appellant as an adult to life imprisonment with parole ineligibility for seven years, finding that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold him accountable or protect the public.

The appellant appealed the adult sentence, arguing the trial judge overemphasized the seriousness of the offence and failed to recognize the similar lengths of youth and adult sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly balanced all statutory factors and correctly recognized that an adult sentence provides necessary life-long state supervision.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement.

The appellant argued that the timing of an $80,000 payment and a letter of reference were essential terms not agreed upon.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the timing of payment was peripheral to the contract's formation, and refusing to hear the letter of reference issue as it was not raised below.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with 12 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding intoxication, the W. (D.) framework, and the temporal relationship between the actus reus and mens rea under Cooper.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the jury instructions, noting the trial judge properly focused the jury on the appellant's actual intent and correctly applied the legal frameworks.

The court also upheld the 12-year parole ineligibility period as fit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for committing an indecent act in a public place, breach of recognizance, and breach of probation.

At trial, the complainant testified that the appellant exposed his penis while asking her for directions from his car.

The defence argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, suggesting the complainant had mistaken a wooden key chain for a penis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, noted the lack of evidentiary support for the key chain theory, and reasonably rejected the appellant's testimony.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and firearms offences, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the robbery conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable.

However, the Court found the trial judge failed to establish to the criminal standard that the weapon used was a firearm.

Consequently, the firearms convictions were set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm.

The appellant's sentence was reduced from five-and-a-half years to five years.

The appellants appealed an order confirming a Master's report on the taking of accounts in a partnership dispute.

They argued the Master erred in failing to give them credit for unequal capital contributions and in allowing the respondent's claim for development fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master's conclusions were supported by the evidence and that he acted within his jurisdiction under Rule 55.04(1)(e) to settle accounts and make just allowances.

The liquidator of a credit union made a claim under a fidelity insurance bond for losses caused by the dishonest conduct of its general manager and other employees.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the credit union.

The insurers appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the uncontested facts supported a finding of direct loss resulting from dishonest acts, there were genuine issues for trial regarding whether the acts constituted a single scheme, and whether the bond's termination and notice conditions applied.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery and his sentence of 10 years' imprisonment.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in a Corbett application by admitting his 28-year-old manslaughter conviction after finding defence counsel attacked the arresting officer's character.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Corbett test.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded the 10-year sentence was outside the appropriate range.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the sentence to 5 years' imprisonment.

The appellants appealed a declaration that an agreement of purchase and sale became null and void due to their failure to properly deliver a notice of waiver of a due diligence condition.

The appellants argued that delivering the notice to the respondents' home and to a real estate representative satisfied the general notice provision in the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific language of Schedule A required the waiver notice to be brought to the personal attention of the sellers, which did not occur in a timely fashion.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years' imprisonment after receiving 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing he should have received 2:1 credit and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered the appellant's poor parole prospects, extensive criminal record, and defence-caused delays in reducing the pre-trial custody credit.

The court also held the sentence was fit given the circumstances of the convenience store robbery.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Having regard to the submissions of counsel and an outstanding costs order, the court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $12,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants were injured when an elevator in the respondents' building malfunctioned and dropped several floors.

At trial, a jury found against the appellants on liability, accepting the defence theory that the malfunction was likely caused by the occupants' misbehaviour.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding the review of evidence, adverse inferences for an uncalled witness, and the burden of proof, as well as in an evidentiary ruling restricting their expert's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge or the evidentiary ruling.

The appellants appealed a judgment ordering them to pay the respondent $53,765.04 US under a travel insurance policy.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the pre-existing condition exclusion, finding a stress test was not a medical consultation, and refusing evidence on mitigation and Florida law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to prove the respondent's angioplasty was caused by his pre-existing hypertension, and upheld the trial judge's findings on the stress test and evidentiary rulings.

The Registrar appealed a Divisional Court decision that found the Board erred in law regarding a liquor licensee permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the Board misinterpreted the word 'permits' in section 45(1) of the regulation, holding that it requires proof the licensee knew or ought to have known of the drunkenness.

Although the Court of Appeal disagreed with the Divisional Court's assessment that the evidence could not support a finding against the licensee, it declined to order a new hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action on a summary judgment motion, which he did not attend.

The motion judge had dismissed the action on the basis that a claim for negligent investigation could not possibly succeed.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in law, as the viability of a negligent investigation claim remains an open question in Ontario.

The Court set aside the dismissal of the action, allowing it to proceed.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter given the amount of the judgment, without prejudice to the appellants commencing an appeal in the proper forum.

The Crown appealed the 30-month sentence (reduced to one day after pre-trial custody credit) imposed on the respondent for manslaughter.

The respondent had strangled the victim after discovering her in his home attempting a robbery and being attacked by her.

The Crown argued the sentence was unfit and outside the established range for manslaughter involving strangulation and disposal of a body.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the acceptable range given the unique circumstances, including the victim's unprovoked attacks, the respondent's lack of prior record, and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody.