Epstein

The appellants appealed an order staying their action against an Alberta hotel corporation for lack of a real and substantial connection to Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that none of the presumptive connecting factors were met.

The court also rejected the appellants' argument that Ontario should assume jurisdiction under the forum of necessity doctrine due to the expiry of the Alberta limitation period, noting the appellants made a tactical decision not to sue in Alberta.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a long-term employee who suddenly became deaf, was subjected to a campaign of abuse by her employer designed to force her resignation.

She was ultimately fired for a frivolous reason.

The employer was noted in default in her wrongful dismissal action.

On appeal from the damages assessment, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by awarding damages that were too low across several categories, including Human Rights Code violations, intentional infliction of mental distress, aggravated damages, and punitive damages.

The total damages were increased to $246,049.92, the maximum allowable under the unamended statement of claim.

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder following a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied on text messages, circumstantial evidence, a jailhouse informant, and an in-court identification by the victim's mother made for the first time during cross-examination.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding the eyewitness identification and the jailhouse informant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's instruction on the eyewitness identification evidence constituted a fatal misdirection by failing to highlight the specific dangers of the delayed, in-court identification.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring her to a secure forensic unit and revoking her community living privileges.

She argued the Board breached natural justice due to alleged conflicts of interest of two panel members and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and that the Board's disposition was reasonable given the significant deterioration in the appellant's mental state and behaviour.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, uttering death threats, and firearm offences, as well as his nine-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the complainant and defence witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and sought independent confirmation for the complainant's testimony.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part only to correct an error in pre-sentence custody credit, granting enhanced credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, while upholding the overall sentence length.

The appellant purchased three apartment buildings from the respondent.

The agreement included an escrow provision holding $300,000 of the purchase price, to be released to the respondent if the gross rental income reached a $960,000 threshold at the end of a three-year performance period.

The application judge found the threshold was met and ordered the funds released to the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred in his approach to contractual interpretation by separating the words from their context, contrary to Sattva.

However, applying the correct framework, the Court concluded the parties intended to measure income performance by annualizing the rent roll at the end of the performance period.

As the threshold was met under this interpretation, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant father sought to relocate with his seven-year-old child from Kincardine to Whitby, relying on a notice provision in a consent order.

The motion judge held that a motion to change was required and dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the proposed move contradicted the schooling and access clauses of the order, necessitating a motion to change.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the father's concerns about the stigma of past false abuse allegations were foreseeable at the time of the original order.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The respondent contractor entered into a construction contract with the appellant to build management offices.

The contractor advanced a claim for extras due to delays.

The application judge ordered the Project Engineer to consider a portion of the claim ($1,437,976), finding the contractor provided sufficient notice under the contract.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge committed an extricable error of law by interpreting the contractual provision in isolation.

Read as a whole, the contract required detailed information to support a claim for extras, which the contractor failed to provide.

The application was dismissed and the claim for extra payment was declared barred.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering the return of a $2,000,000 deposit to the respondent purchaser after a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent fulfilled its contractual obligation to apply in good faith to assume existing mortgages before rejecting the terms offered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and his conclusion that a formal application would have been an exercise in futility.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to advance evidence to rebut the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) and to overcome the discoverability requirements of s. 5(1)(b) of the Limitations Act.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $7,500.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence consisting of expert reports suggesting a key document in the litigation was forged.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, noting that while the appellants failed to exercise due diligence by not raising the issue before the motion judge, the interests of justice required a trial to resolve the real concerns about the bona fides of the respondent's claim.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment set aside.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the terms of a draft order.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his claims regarding damages under the Line Fences Act and a dispute over the sale of certain parcels of land.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant failed to prove damages regarding the fence and that the land sale agreement excluded the disputed parcels.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the trial costs order was refused.

The appellant was convicted of participating in or contributing to the activities of a terrorist group after attending a training camp and providing computer assistance to the group's leaders.

On appeal, he challenged the admission of intercepted private communications obtained in breach of section 8 of the Charter, undated departure letters found in his bedroom, and cross-examination on religious and ideological materials.

He also argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the actus reus of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and finding the jury instructions substantially complied with the law.

The appellant mother appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with a temporary access order.

The motion judge had ordered her to pay a $5,000 fine and $10,000 in costs, to be set off against the respondent father's child support arrears and ongoing obligations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application of the three-part test for contempt, the direct payment of the fine, the unusual but justified set-off against child support, or the decision not to bifurcate the proceedings to allow purging of the contempt.

The appellant appealed a decision implying a contractual obligation to disclose financial information to the respondent, enabling the respondent to determine whether to exercise an option to acquire up to a 20% interest in a limited partnership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the business efficacy test.

The Court held that the option right would be illusory without the implied right to disclosure, and that implying such a term was necessary to give business efficacy to the parties' agreement.

The appellant church operated a homeless shelter in its basement.

The respondent municipality sought an injunction to stop the shelter, arguing it violated the local zoning by-law which permitted 'church' uses but prohibited soup kitchens and food banks.

The application judge granted the injunction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in his interpretation of the by-law.

The Court found that the homeless shelter fell within the by-law's definition of 'church-sponsored community activities and projects'.

The appeal was allowed and the injunction was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the Crown and members of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The motion judge had dismissed the action on several grounds, including judicial immunity, improper notice, non-compliance with the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, and improper collateral attack, characterizing the action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's reasoning and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

Metrolinx purchased a railway corridor from CN and requested that Enbridge relocate six gas pipelines crossing under the railway.

A dispute arose over who should bear the relocation costs.

The application judge found that under the historical agreements, Enbridge was responsible for the costs, and that CN had assigned these rights to Metrolinx.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Enbridge's appeal, holding that the application judge made no palpable and overriding error in interpreting the complex commercial agreements.

The appellant, facing charges under the Provincial Offences Act for failing to comply with property standards orders under the Building Code Act, sought advanced funding to mount a constitutional challenge against the Building Code Act.

He argued the Act violated his section 7 Charter rights by threatening his shelter.

The application judge dismissed the request.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding the constitutional challenge lacked merit because section 7 does not protect property rights and the Building Code Act itself does not authorize the seizure of property.