Fairburn

The appellant sought an adjournment of his appeal from an order declaring him a vexatious litigant, citing a pending Superior Court application to appoint a guardian for his property and care.

Despite concerns about delay and a previous dismissal of a litigation guardian application, the Court of Appeal granted a brief 60-day adjournment due to newly authored psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's capacity.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from an incident at a cottage where both parties were highly intoxicated.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent based on his failure to take reasonable steps and his self-induced intoxication.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant took no steps to ensure the complainant was awake and consenting, and that his belief was anchored in his own intoxication.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence.

At trial, the judge rejected the testimony of a defence witness who claimed ownership of the firearm found in the car driven by the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessment.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The sentencing judge erred by refusing to grant credit for harsh presentence custody conditions (lockdowns) despite agreement between the parties that such credit was warranted.

The Court granted 75 days of additional credit.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by treating the complainant's lack of embellishment as a factor that enhanced her credibility, rather than merely noting it as an absence of a negative factor.

The Crown conceded the error but argued for the application of the curative proviso.

The Court declined to apply the proviso because credibility was the core issue at trial and the impact of the error could not be dismissed.

The conviction appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5000, fraud under $5000, and uttering a forged document after misappropriating over $350,000 from clients of her payroll services company.

She appealed her convictions and three-year custodial sentence, alleging errors in credibility findings, unauthorized changes to her mode of trial, unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, improper non-disclosure, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in any of the grounds raised.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, save for setting aside the victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug and firearms offences, as well as his global sentence of 660 days.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his testimony that the drugs were left by party attendees and that he received inadequate assistance as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge's conclusions well-supported by the evidence.

However, based on a Crown concession, the court allowed the appeal on one firearms count and entered an acquittal.

The sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, and assault arising from an incident between two teenagers who had met online.

The trial judge accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible and rejected the accused’s evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge improperly treated the complainant as a child witness, applied a different level of scrutiny due to the parties’ age difference, and incorrectly found collusion between the accused and his parents.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, holding that the trial judge merely referenced the complainant’s age at the time of the events and conducted a balanced credibility assessment.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and six-month sentence for sexual assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting the legally blind complainant's video recorded statement as her evidence-in-chief under s. 715.2 of the Criminal Code, and in excluding evidence of prior sexual history under s. 276.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or application of the W.(D.) principles, and upheld the sentence and mandatory sex offender registry order.

The appellant, convicted of criminal harassment, sought leave to appeal from a Superior Court of Justice decision dismissing his summary conviction appeal.

He also brought a fresh evidence application involving translated documents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence application and denied leave to appeal, finding no issue significant to the administration of justice and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The appellant, a police officer, was criminally charged following an SIU investigation into a training exercise explosion.

After the charges were stayed, he sued his fellow officers and the police board for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office, alleging they intentionally misled the SIU.

The motion judge dismissed the claim, finding it was a workplace dispute governed exclusively by the collective agreement and the Police Services Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the claim involved an independent criminal investigation outside the workplace, and therefore the court's jurisdiction was not ousted.

The appellant sold his company to the respondents and entered into an employment agreement.

After the company was assigned into bankruptcy, the appellant sued for breach of contract, oppression, and wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge awarded damages for oppression but dismissed the claims for the share purchase price, wrongful dismissal, and punitive damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in interpreting the share purchase agreement, holding that the plain wording required a minimum payment of $750,000 for the shares after five years regardless of profitability.

The appeal was allowed in part to award the $750,000, but dismissed regarding wrongful dismissal and punitive damages.

Following the quashing of the appellant's conviction for sexual assault causing bodily harm, the Court of Appeal issued an addendum to address the dangerous offender finding and indeterminate sentence.

The trial judge had improperly grounded the dangerous offender finding and indeterminate sentence on convictions for failure to comply with an undertaking, which are not serious personal injury offences.

The Court set aside the dangerous offender finding and indeterminate sentence, substituting concurrent 30-day sentences for the failure to comply convictions.

The appellant appealed convictions for aggravated sexual assault arising from sexual intercourse with multiple complainants without disclosure of HIV-positive status.

He argued, through reopening and fresh evidence, that condom use alone should negate the realistic possibility of HIV transmission notwithstanding the absence of a low viral load.

The Court of Appeal held that the proposed evidence was not sufficiently cogent under the fresh evidence framework because it attacked the legal foundations of the governing Supreme Court authority rather than demonstrating a material change in the factual underpinnings relevant to condom effectiveness.

Applying stare decisis and the governing fraud-and-consent analysis in HIV non-disclosure cases, the court declined to alter the existing rule requiring both condom use and a low viral load to negate a realistic possibility of transmission.

The fresh evidence application and the appeal were dismissed, subject to a minor amendment to one count on consent.

The appellant mother took her three children from Kuwait to Canada without the respondent father's consent and claimed refugee status, alleging domestic violence.

The father applied for the children's return to Kuwait.

The application judge ordered the children returned, finding no risk of serious harm under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by rejecting uncontradicted expert evidence that the children's fears of their father were independent and not influenced by the mother.

The Court also held that ordering the children's return before their refugee claims were determined violated the principle of non-refoulement.

The appeal was allowed and a custody hearing was ordered in Ontario.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision refusing to amend its declaration under s. 109(3) of the Condominium Act.

The dispute centered on who should bear the cost of replacing deteriorated chimney flues that exclusively serviced 22 residential units.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge erred in concluding there was no inconsistency between sections 22 and 23 of the declaration.

The Court held that the sections failed to clearly delineate the responsibilities for repairing exclusive use common elements after normal wear and tear, creating an unworkable mutual obligation.

The appeal was allowed and an order was granted to amend the declaration to clarify that unit owners are responsible for maintaining and repairing exclusive use common elements at their own expense.

The appellant appealed his convictions arising from a vehicular accident, arguing his guilty pleas should be struck.

He claimed he pled guilty under the mistaken belief it would grant him access to drug treatment court and that he could easily strike the pleas later.

The Court of Appeal found the pleas were not informed, noting the absence of a s. 606(1.1) Criminal Code plea inquiry and a comment by the trial judge suggesting the pleas could be easily struck.

The appeal was allowed, the guilty pleas were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the lower court.

The appellant pled guilty to trafficking approximately 3.5 kg of cocaine over four transactions and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in applying the parity principle and in establishing an eight-year starting range before mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application of the parity principle given the co-accused's lesser roles, nor in the determination of the appropriate sentencing range for kilogram-level cocaine trafficking.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm-related offences, arguing that his identification as the person who threw a package containing a handgun from a balcony was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The trial judge relied on circumstantial evidence, including police observations during the execution of a warrant, to conclude that the appellant was the only person who could have thrown the package.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the only reasonable inference was that the appellant possessed and threw the firearm, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to sell 15 gas stations in Ontario and Quebec, requiring the assignment of leases and credit/debit card agreements.

The respondent refused to consent to the assignments unless the appellant agreed to a five-year contract extension.

The application judge found the refusal unreasonable for the leases but dismissed the application entirely due to Quebec choice of law and forum selection clauses in some leases.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the judge erred by not granting relief for the Ontario stations, by failing to apply the strong cause test to depart from the forum selection clauses, and by not finding that the duty of good faith precluded the respondent from unreasonably withholding consent to the credit/debit card agreements.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

Unbeknownst to the panel, the parties had reached an agreement that if the appeal was dismissed, the respondent would receive $11,000 for costs.

The court amended its reasons to reflect the parties' agreement, awarding $11,000 in costs to the respondent.