Fairburn

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault against his wife.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the appellant punched her in the face, breaking her jaw, and rejected the appellant's claim that she fell down the stairs while intoxicated.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in her credibility findings, including relying on the lack of blood on the stairs and the absence of other bodily injuries without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences were based on common sense and available on the record.

The appellant, previously found NCRMD for assault with a weapon and robbery, appealed a conditional discharge disposition by the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant argued the Board failed to fulfill its inquisitorial role and improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding whether he posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had sufficient evidence to make an informed decision and did not shift the burden of proof, as its concerns about the appellant's stability were amply supported by psychiatric evidence.

The infant plaintiff suffered significant injuries after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs moved to extend the time to set the action down for trial, and the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The Master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, which was upheld by the Superior Court and Divisional Court on the basis that the court retained inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials without consent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure clearly requires the consent of the parties to bifurcate any proceeding, whether jury or non-jury, thereby ousting the court's inherent jurisdiction to do so without consent.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault following a judge-alone trial.

The complainant, who was heavily intoxicated and found to be unconscious at the start of the sexual activity, testified that he awoke to being fellated by the appellant and did not consent.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in applying the rule in Browne v. Dunn, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that the reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that any error regarding Browne v. Dunn was immaterial, as the appellant's own evidence showed he took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent, depriving him of the defence of mistaken belief in communicated consent.

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

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs, which were reduced to reflect a lack of success on a residential tenancy issue.

Costs were fixed at $5,000 for the appeal and $15,000 for the application, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant, a refugee in Canada, sued his former Kuwaiti employers and others for damages arising from alleged torture and conspiracy in Kuwait.

The motion judge stayed the action for want of jurisdiction, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and declining to apply the forum of necessity doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error in principle and his discretionary decision, based on a lack of cogent evidence supporting the appellant's claims of exceptional circumstances, was entitled to deference.

The appellant brought an adjournment application because a litigation guardian was recently appointed and the appellant had been hospitalized for mental health concerns.

The respondent opposed the adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment, setting timelines for responding to a Rule 2.1 application and scheduling the appeal hearing.

Following a successful appeal where the court suggested wording to amend section 22 of a condominium declaration regarding the duty to repair and maintain, the parties were unable to agree on the final wording.

The appellant accepted the court's proposed wording, while the respondents sought different wording and the removal of a paragraph from the earlier reasons.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondents' submissions as an attempt to reargue the decided issues and ordered that the formal order reflect the court's originally proposed wording.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a trial judge's costs order made in favour of his former spouse.

The trial judge had ordered costs to be paid from funds held in court, noting the moving party's failure to meaningfully participate in the trial and the partial success of the responding party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no strong grounds to interfere with the trial judge's discretionary costs order.

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with a consent order requiring the parties to enroll their children in counselling to facilitate effective co-parenting.

The motion judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant wilfully obstructed the counselling process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or interpretation of the order.

The appellant, a truck driver, appealed the dismissal of his action following a successful summary judgment motion by the respondents.

He alleged he suffered injuries after falling on uneven ground at the respondents' premises.

The motion judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial, accepting unchallenged evidence that the premises were regularly inspected and no hazards were found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not reverse the onus and was entitled to reject the appellant's expert opinion, which was based on information inconsistent with the appellant's discovery evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of child pornography and his 15-month custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in her Garofoli ruling regarding the search warrant and in declining to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter despite finding three s. 8 breaches.

He also argued the sentence was harsh given his medical condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's application of the law on amplification or the Grant analysis.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court deferring to the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's medical condition.

The appellant landlord and respondent tenants entered into a residential occupancy agreement and an option to purchase agreement.

The respondent attempted to exercise the option to purchase, but the notice was late and did not include the required deposit.

The parties subsequently entered into a new agreement of purchase and sale at a higher price, which the respondent failed to close.

The application judge found the respondent had substantially complied with the option agreement and dismissed the landlord's application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the option agreement required strict compliance due to 'time is of the essence' and non-waiver clauses.

The Court ordered the forfeiture of the majority of the deposit but declined to issue a writ of possession, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the residential tenancy.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that denied his request for an absolute discharge and continued his conditional discharge.

The appellant argued the Board misapprehended evidence regarding his medication compliance and imposed an unreasonable disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while there was a minor factual error, it was not material to the Board's analysis.

The Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable and justified given the appellant's lack of insight, history of substance abuse, and risk of future harm.

The appellants, claimants who suffered abuse at St. Anne's Indian Residential School in Ontario, filed a Request for Directions (RFD) regarding the respondent's disclosure obligations under the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The Eastern Administrative Judge (the Ontario Supervising Judge) recused himself and directed that the RFD be heard by the British Columbia Supervising Judge, relying on the Court Administration Protocol (CAP).

The appellants appealed, arguing the RFD must be heard in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the CAP contains mandatory language requiring RFDs involving relief for a particular class to be directed to the supervising court with jurisdiction over that class.

As the appellants are members of the Ontario class, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction.

The matter was remitted to the Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to assign a different judge.

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

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $4,172.28, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the police violated his Charter rights by unlawfully arresting him in his home without a Feeney warrant and conducting an unlawful search.

The police had entered the home without a warrant due to exigent circumstances after a 9-1-1 caller reported seeing a woman being assaulted in a vehicle parked in the driveway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest, did not require a Feeney warrant since they were already lawfully inside, and lawfully seized the drugs which were in plain view during a valid safety sweep incident to arrest.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the motion judge erred in dismissing his section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The appellant contended the judge improperly attributed delay to his indecision over retaining private counsel versus Legal Aid, and erred in finding exceptional circumstances due to interpreter issues requiring multiple audits.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in fentanyl, raising three grounds: a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel, an unlawful search of a co-accused's cellphone under s. 8, and a misapplication of the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant repeatedly waived his right to counsel until 1:30 a.m., and that the subsequent breach was minor.

The court declined to consider the s. 8 claim due to an inadequate evidentiary record, as it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Finally, the court found the circumstantial case for trafficking was strong and the trial judge's reasons were unassailable.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR), had been eligible to live in a community residential setting since 2014 but remained in forensic custody due to a lack of funded supportive housing.

He brought a Charter application arguing his continued detention violated his section 7 liberty rights.

The Ontario Review Board dismissed the application, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to grant a funding remedy and that the proper parties were not present.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board had broad inquisitorial powers and jurisdiction to grant the remedy.

The Court held that the appellant's continued detention due solely to a lack of funding was arbitrary and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The government was ordered to address the appellant's accommodation at his next scheduled annual review.