Fairburn

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for breach of an oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a commercial development project.

The trial judge found that the individual appellant sold the project without disclosing it to the investors, misappropriated the proceeds, and lied for years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the existence of the oral contract, credibility, piercing the corporate veil to find personal liability, and the award of punitive damages.

The appellant tenant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for deferred rent owed to the respondent landlord.

The parties had agreed to defer rent payments until the appellant settled a lawsuit with a third party.

The appellant argued there was no agreement and that a release signed in a prior small claims action barred the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a clear contract existed and that the general release did not cover the contingent loan for deferred rent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her counterclaim for intentional infliction of mental distress, negligence, and other claims following a summary trial.

The dispute arose from a history of conflict between neighbours, including previous vandalism by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including his rejection of the appellant's psychological evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision not to grant a permanent injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal where the appellant had mixed success on a summary judgment motion and was unsuccessful on a contempt motion, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court reduced the costs awarded to the respondents on the summary judgment motion from $35,000 to $10,000 due to the appellant's partial success.

The court also awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $3,500 for the contempt appeal and $1,500 for the summary judgment appeal.

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for multiple murders and sexual offences in the 1970s and 1980s, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a high-security facility.

At his annual review, all parties jointly submitted that he should be transferred to a less secure facility for a 90-day independent psychiatric assessment to explore a potential move to a less secure environment.

The Board rejected the joint submission.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain its rejection of the joint submission, misapprehended the evidence regarding the utility of the assessment, and failed to fulfill its inquisitorial duty to explore the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment order granting specific performance to the respondent vendor after the appellant failed to close on a $3 million custom-built home.

The appellant argued the agreement was void due to misrepresentations and lack of solicitor review, and that specific performance was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement was valid and that the property's unique customizations and the flooded housing market justified specific performance rather than damages.

An application to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appellants and respondent entered into agreements of purchase and sale for a property to be severed.

The agreements required a second deposit upon the city's approval of the severance.

The appellants obtained approval but withheld this information from the respondent for over six months.

Upon finally informing the respondent, the appellants demanded immediate payment of the second deposit and subsequently terminated the agreements when the respondent, who was out of the country, requested an extension.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the appellants acted unreasonably and breached the duty of good faith performance by imposing an arbitrary and impossible deadline.

The claimant, an Ontario resident, was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in Nunavut while driving a Nunavut-plated vehicle insured by the appellant.

The respondent, the claimant's Ontario insurer, paid Ontario statutory accident benefits and sought reimbursement from the appellant under the priority provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act.

The arbitrator and appeal judge ruled in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not an 'Ontario insurer' for the purposes of the priority dispute and that the Ontario Insurance Act could not be applied extraterritorially to a Nunavut policy for an accident occurring in Nunavut.

The parties settled a wrongful dismissal action on the eve of trial for $75,000 plus costs.

When the defendants failed to pay, the plaintiff successfully moved for judgment under Rule 49.04.

The defendants appealed, arguing the settlement lacked essential terms regarding the allocation of damages and should be voided on public policy grounds due to the plaintiff's litigation tactics.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the settlement terms were clear and there was no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretion to enforce it.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal seeking substantial indemnity costs was also dismissed.

The appellant sought to recover costs awarded against a single-purpose corporation from its parent company, the respondent.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil or award costs against a non-party, but awarded the respondent $48,408.03 in costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, finding no abuse of process by the respondent.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs award, reducing it to $25,000 due to the trial judge's failure to adequately apply the principle of proportionality in a Simplified Procedure action.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appellant's appeal of an order striking parts of her statement of claim and removing her lawyers of record.

The respondents argued both orders were interlocutory and should be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash the appeal of the order striking the claim, finding it was final because it effectively foreclosed amendments.

However, the court quashed the appeal of the order removing counsel, confirming it was interlocutory and leave to appeal must be sought in the Divisional Court.

The self-represented applicant moved to set aside a previous decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his family law appeal, seeking a new hearing under Rules 37.14 and 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that Rule 37.14 had no application and that the authority to reconsider a decision under Rule 59.06 is exercised sparingly.

The applicant's arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the correctness of the appeal decision.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the proper route to contest the decision was to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appellant was convicted of fraud and theft over $5,000 for operating a large-scale Ponzi scheme that defrauded 41 victims of over $10 million.

He was sentenced to the maximum term of 14 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by using the appellant's lack of remorse and exercise of his right to trial as an aggravating factor to justify the maximum sentence.

The Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to 10 years' imprisonment, maintaining the restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture orders.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity under s. 276 and in admitting the deceased complainant's preliminary inquiry testimony under s. 715.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's rulings, noting the s. 276 application was based on an improper foundation of questions asked in violation of the section at the preliminary inquiry.

The court also upheld the admission of the preliminary inquiry testimony and the trial judge's credibility assessments, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, failing to comply, and uttering a threat to an animal.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the evidence of two witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies and omissions, and challenged the admission of a prior sworn statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings and noting the prior statement was admitted on consent.

The appeal was dismissed, save for setting aside the victim fine surcharges.

The appellant, a young person, appealed his conviction for sexual assault arising from an incident in a high school classroom.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility, resolving inconsistencies, and addressing potential collusion and animus.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, noting that discrepancies in witness accounts were natural given their different vantage points and that the trial judge properly considered the complainant's age and the passage of time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a home invasion robbery where an occupant was shot.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to give a 'mixed witness' Vetrovec instruction and a W.(D.) instruction regarding a co-perpetrator's testimony, which was exculpatory at trial but inculpatory during a prior guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge adequate when read as a whole.

The sentence appeal was granted only to credit the appellant with 90 days of pre-sentence custody on consent of the Crown.

The appellant mother appealed the dismissal of her Hague Convention application seeking the return of her child to France.

The mother had taken the child to France in October 2018, and the respondent father brought the child back to Ontario in February 2019.

The application judge found that the child's habitual residence remained Canada throughout this period, as the father had only consented to a two-week trip to France, making the mother's retention of the child wrongful.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's application of the Balev hybrid approach to determine habitual residence.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately address the jury's questions regarding the absence of forensic evidence linking him to the fire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's answer was complete, legally accurate, and properly reminded the jury that a reasonable doubt can arise from an absence of evidence.

The appellant appealed an order of committal for extradition to the United States on the offence of fraud.

He argued the hearing judge erred in finding evidence linking him to the alias 'Marc Richards' and linking that alias to the fraudulent scheme.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence in the record, including emails and a passport photo, linking the appellant to the alias and the fraudulent scheme.