Gary W. Tranmer

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from a bar altercation in which a bouncer was struck with a brick.

The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, particularly because the trial judge rejected portions of eyewitness testimony and relied heavily on a brief surveillance video.

The appellate court reviewed the video evidence and the trial judge’s reasoning, including the finding that the footage established a chain of events leading from the blow to the victim immediately pinning the accused to the ground.

Applying the principles governing convictions based on video evidence, the court held the verdict was one that a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably reach.

The conviction was therefore upheld.

On a family law motion for interim relief following separation, the court addressed interim child support and interim spousal support in the context of a shared custody arrangement.

The court declined to impute full-time income to the responding party at this stage and instead fixed her income based on current part‑time earnings.

The moving party’s income was set using a prior year’s earnings where current information was incomplete.

Interim support was ordered based on those incomes and the shared parenting schedule.

Additional requests regarding restrictions on a new partner’s presence, international travel with the children, appraisal procedures for the matrimonial home, and removal of the children from school were determined on an interim basis.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and threatening conduct, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility by overemphasizing her demeanour, failing to reconcile inconsistencies in her statements, and making unsupported factual findings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the inconsistencies as minor and contextualized them within the complainant's emotional state.

The court held there was no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings and the verdict was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The successful plaintiffs sought costs following litigation against a municipal defendant.

The court assessed the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rate and time spent, noting that the defendant did not dispute either and that the matter involved numerous complex factual and legal issues.

The court also noted the absence of any settlement offers and the cooperative conduct between counsel during the litigation.

Applying the general rule that costs follow the event, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The parties brought a motion to determine a Special Case regarding a 1953 agreement between the former Township of Thurlow and the plaintiffs' predecessor in title.

The agreement required the municipality to perpetually maintain a drainage system.

The court found that the plaintiffs, as successors in title, could enforce the positive covenant against the original covenantor (the amalgamated City of Belleville) despite a lack of privity of contract.

The court also dismissed the City's defences based on public policy, inadequate property description, lack of reliance, limitation periods, and laches.

The applicant sought habeas corpus relief challenging a decision by correctional authorities to reclassify him from medium to maximum security and transfer him to a maximum‑security institution.

He argued that the decision was arbitrary and violated procedural fairness and s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because insufficient information was disclosed about the alleged assault that triggered the reclassification.

The court considered the disclosure obligations under s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the jurisprudence governing prison transfer decisions.

It held that although some intelligence information was not disclosed, the applicant had received sufficient information about the incident—including the existence of video surveillance—to understand the case against him and respond meaningfully.

The deprivation of liberty was therefore lawful and the application was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, permission to relocate to Saskatchewan, child support, and a restraining order against the respondent father.

The parties separated following an incident of domestic violence that led to the father's arrest.

The mother subsequently moved with the children to Saskatchewan to live near her family.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the father struggled with alcohol abuse and had failed to pay child support.

The court granted the mother sole custody and permitted the relocation, finding it in the children's best interests.

The father was granted supervised access and ordered to pay child support based on imputed income.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $8,000 all-inclusive.

The court substantially reduced the quantum claimed because both parties failed to address the narrow single issue upon which the appeal was ultimately disposed, which was raised by the panel after the hearing.

A minor deduction was also made for potentially unrecoverable travel disbursements.

The tenant appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board which dismissed his applications on the basis that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Board had found that the tenancy was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under section 5(i) because the landlord either moved into the shared accommodation after the tenancy began or intended to do so from the start.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that for the section 5(i) exemption to apply, the landlord must actually live in the building at the time the tenancy agreement is entered into.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation after the respondent signed a spousal pension waiver without reading it.

The trial judge found the waiver form was confusing and awarded damages.

On appeal, the majority of the Divisional Court upheld the trial judgment, finding that the waiver form used by the employer differed substantially from the form approved by the Superintendent of Financial Services, violating the mandatory requirements of section 46(1) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The appeal was dismissed.