Ernest J. Guiste

The appellant filed written submissions asking to appeal his sentence following a previous hearing.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the appellant had not abandoned his sentence appeal, but ultimately dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out in the Crown's response.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing her action for failing to comply with court orders, specifically failing to answer undertakings and pay costs.

The appellant argued the Master failed to give sufficient weight to her impecuniosity and the resulting denial of access to justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master made no error of principle or palpable and overriding error, as impecuniosity is not a shield for a party who consistently fails to act reasonably.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Crown's reference to uncontradicted evidence violated section 4(6) of the Canada Evidence Act and that the trial judge's answer to a jury question undermined their right to disagree.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that stating evidence is uncontradicted does not amount to a comment on the failure to testify, and that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on their right to disagree.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her action for malicious prosecution and negligent investigation against the police.

She argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the exact words spoken, the police's duty to get her version of events, and the assessment of reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the charge, noting it fairly focused the jury on whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's decision to deny them costs based solely on the appellant's impecuniosity.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that impecuniosity cannot be the only factor considered, and awarded the respondents $40,000 in trial costs and $7,500 for the appeal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his defamation claim against his former employer.

The claim was based on the employer submitting a statutory form to employment insurance authorities stating the appellant had been 'dismissed' and a follow-up statement that the dismissal was for breach of policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge.

The court held that the statements were protected by qualified privilege and there was no evidence of malice to overcome that privilege.

The applicant's application for judicial review of a human rights commission decision was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $5,000 each.

The applicant argued she should be relieved of paying costs because her case raised public policy issues and she was impecunious.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs against the applicant, finding it appropriate to relieve her of the obligation due to the public interest issues raised and her difficult financial circumstances.

The appellant was unsuccessful at trial, where the trial judge made no order as to costs due to her impecuniosity.

The appellant subsequently pursued an appeal and was again entirely unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents, holding that they should not be deprived of their costs a second time despite the appellant's financial circumstances.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was charged with theft after management viewed a videotape and contacted police.

She was acquitted and subsequently sued the arresting officer and the restaurant owner for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation.

A jury found against her on all issues.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft, failed to outline her position, and improperly allowed the defendants to expand the theft allegation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict and concluding the jury was properly instructed.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was acquitted of criminal theft charges and subsequently sued her employer and the arresting officer for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, and other claims.

A jury dismissed all her claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft and failed to properly outline her position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the jury was entitled to reach its factual conclusions based on the evidence.

The appellants appealed an order granting summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondents' blanket denials of wrongdoing satisfied the threshold for a Rule 20 motion, and that the appellants' materials failed to raise a genuine issue for trial.

Leave to appeal costs was denied, and costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant was arrested for sexual assault during an undercover police operation targeting public sex in a park.

After the criminal charge was withdrawn, the appellant sued the police for negligence, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting proposed expert evidence, failing to consider his section 15(1) Charter discrimination claim, and dismissing the malicious prosecution claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the expert evidence was unnecessary, the trial judge properly considered and rejected the Charter claim, and there was no evidence of malice to support malicious prosecution.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a claim for damages for alleged wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal held the matter was fact driven and found no significant error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his action against counsel retained by his union to present his grievance under a collective agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that, in essence, the dispute arose from the administration of the collective agreement and the only duty owed to the appellant was the union’s duty of fair representation under s. 37 of the Canada Labour Code.

Because complaints alleging breach of that duty fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action.

The court therefore dismissed the appeal and found it unnecessary to address issue estoppel.