Gary T. Trotter

This appeal concerns a franchise dispute where the motion judge granted partial summary judgment for rescission of a franchise agreement and damages of $964,805.33 against the franchisor.

The central issue was whether the franchisor failed to disclose earnings projections that were allegedly shown to the franchisees at a May 2010 meeting, constituting material non-disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The appellate court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the rescission judgment and damages award on the basis that the motion judge erred in determining the key disputed factual issue on contradictory evidence without oral testimony.

However, the court upheld the motion judge's determination that the rescission claim was timely, as the limitation period ran from the replacement agreement signed in September 2010 rather than the original agreement signed in June 2010.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm while prohibited, uttering death threats, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, robbery, break and enter, mischief, and pointing a firearm.

The crimes involved armed home invasions in London.

The case depended entirely on eyewitness identification evidence, which was replete with problems.

The trial judge failed to provide adequate instructions regarding the dangers of in-dock identification and the flaws in the photo lineup procedure.

The Court of Appeal found the verdict unreasonable, as no reasonable jury could have convicted on the evidence presented, and entered acquittals on all counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction for criminal harassment of a former girlfriend and his sentence of 14 months imprisonment plus three years' probation.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in her credibility analysis and failed to stay the charges due to alleged Charter breaches.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law or misapprehension of fact in the trial judge's reasons and determined that the sentence was not unfit and disclosed no error in principle.

The appeal was dismissed.

Neighbouring homeowners disputed rights over a 14-foot strip of land between their properties containing two abutting driveways.

The respondents claimed a prescriptive easement based on historical use by predecessors in title.

The application judge found the easement had been acquired through the doctrine of lost modern grant and ordered the appellants to remove a fence erected on their property.

The appellants appealed, arguing the requirements for a prescriptive easement had not been met.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the evidence did not establish use "as of right" and that the easement was not reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the dominant property.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault of his then 17-year-old niece, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a proper curative instruction to the jury in response to Crown counsel's closing remarks.

Crown counsel had commented that the complainant was not asked about abrasions to her genitals or the presence of male DNA on her body.

The appellant argued this violated the rule prohibiting questions about other sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's instructions adequately addressed the issue by explaining the legal prohibition on such questions and reiterating the Crown's burden of proof.

The court also dismissed the appellant's request for leave to appeal his sentence, which was imposed pursuant to a joint submission.

This is a costs endorsement following the release of reasons in an appeal.

The respondents advised that the court had misapprehended the appellants' oral costs submissions regarding quantum.

The parties were permitted to provide further written submissions on the costs issue.

The court affirmed its costs order for the appeal but altered the costs of the motion below, reducing the amounts payable by Bank of Montreal and Toronto Dominion Bank.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of driving while disqualified and failing to stop for police.

He was sentenced to 2½ years in custody on each offence, to be served concurrently.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal rejected the conviction appeal on three grounds: the trial judge's failure to direct the jury on the prohibited use of silence, the direction on prior inconsistent statements, and the adverse inference regarding alibi evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentencing appeal, finding the trial judge failed to apply the principle of totality, did not adequately consider the hardship of segregated custody, and failed to properly analyze evidence regarding mental health and rehabilitative efforts.

The sentence was set aside and replaced with time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence of six months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no basis to set aside the trial judge's credibility findings.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the sentence failed to reflect the appellant's peripheral role in the offence given the amount of marijuana involved.

The sentence was reduced to time served, with all ancillary orders remaining in place.

The appellant appealed a 12-month sentence imposed for aggravated assault.

The appellant and victim, both in their mid-30s, engaged in a consensual fight with long-standing animosity between them.

During the altercation, the appellant struck the victim multiple times with a beer bottle, causing serious injuries to the victim's left hand requiring surgery.

The sentencing judge found the assault was not unprovoked and that the appellant caused all injuries.

The appellant had a difficult background with post-traumatic stress disorder and mental health issues, but the trial judge found these did not contribute to the offence.

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

The appellant appealed a sentence of two years imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice following guilty pleas to several counts including robbery.

The original joint submission between Crown and defence was for 18 months, but defence counsel requested the sentencing judge impose two years to enable the appellant to access addiction assistance in a penitentiary.

The Crown consented to this request.

However, the appellant was not placed in a penitentiary but rather remained in a detention facility awaiting trial on another matter.

The Crown subsequently sought to have the original 18-month joint submission imposed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted an 18-month sentence, while increasing the probation period to two years to further rehabilitation goals.

The appellant brought a motion to reinstate his appeal from conviction and to seek an extension of time to seek leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant's former counsel had filed a Notice of Abandonment of the appeal based on instructions allegedly from the appellant's brother, not the appellant himself.

The Crown did not oppose the motion.

The court found that the appellant intended to pursue his appeal and was unaware that a separate notice was required for leave to appeal sentence.

The conviction appeal was reinstated to include leave to appeal sentence, and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings.

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference with a person under the age of 14 years.

The victim alleged that the appellant touched her vagina while she was sleeping on a mattress in the appellant's living room.

The appellant denied the allegations, and his son testified in support of his father.

On appeal, duty counsel raised grounds challenging the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, and alleging that the trial judge mischaracterized evidence and reversed the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly considered both credibility and reliability, fairly characterized the evidence, and was entitled to make the credibility findings as made.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences under the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in respect of fraudulent refugee applications totalling 170 applications.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of 45 months' imprisonment less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the conviction appeal, noting that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the trial judge's findings and that the trial judge properly evaluated witness credibility and the appellant's unworthy evidence.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that the sentence was appropriate given the serious aggravating factors including the number of fraudulent applications, multiple breaches of trust, and the appellant's motives of financial gain and community standing.

The appellant challenged the validity of two wills executed by her deceased husband on the grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity due to chronic alcoholism.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the testator possessed testamentary capacity and knew and approved of the contents of his wills.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in excluding expert evidence and in finding that the testator had capacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable or overriding error.

The court held that the trial judge properly exercised her discretion as gatekeeper in excluding the expert evidence, which had become increasingly tentative and speculative.

The court also found that the trial judge properly applied the framework for assessing will validity, including the displaced presumption triggered by suspicious circumstances relating to the testator's mental capacity.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder in the stabbing death of Nighisti Semret in downtown Toronto on October 23, 2012.

The appellant appealed on three grounds: (1) that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury that after-the-fact conduct had no probative value in distinguishing between levels of culpability; (2) that the trial judge failed to provide an O'Connor instruction regarding the appellant's false statements to police and medical personnel; and (3) that evidence of the appellant's trip to Germany should not have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

An appeal from two dispositions of the Ontario Review Board concerning a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Board's May 23, 2017 conditional discharge order and its August 11, 2017 detention order, arguing both were unreasonable and that the August 11 order resulted from procedural unfairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from the May 23 order as moot and upheld the August 11 detention order, finding it was reasonable based on the appellant's relapse into drug use, violent behavior, and non-compliance with medication and reporting requirements.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importation and possession of over 100 kilograms of heroin and possession of approximately $650,000 as proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case was based on evidence from a controlled delivery of heroin, authorized searches of storage units, and testimony from a courier.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: inadequate jury instructions regarding identification evidence, improper qualification of an expert witness regarding FINTRAC reports, and improper curtailment of cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, finding the trial judge's rulings were appropriate and the Crown's case was overwhelming.

The appellant appealed from a judgment denying certiorari to quash an order committing him to trial on charges of first-degree murder and participating in a criminal organization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's refusal to grant certiorari.

The preliminary inquiry judge properly considered the evidence and correctly determined that the Crown had met the minimal threshold required to justify committal.

The reviewing court's task was solely to consider whether there was any evidence upon which the committing justice could form an opinion that the evidence was sufficient to put the accused on trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions on seven counts for various offences against his former domestic partner, including sexual assault with a weapon, and his three-year custodial sentence.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, arguing uneven scrutiny of evidence, improper application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions and sentence, finding the trial judge fairly assessed the evidence, that any error regarding Browne v. Dunn did not materially affect the outcome, and that the appellant failed to meet the threshold for ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant appealed her three-year sentence (less six months pre-sentence custody credit) imposed following a guilty plea to trafficking in firearms.

The appellant challenged the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2)(a) of the Criminal Code as contrary to s. 12 of the Charter on the basis that it was overly broad and could be grossly disproportionate in certain circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to address the constitutional argument as the three-year sentence was fit and appropriate even without the mandatory minimum, given the serious aggravating factors present.