Gary Trotter J.A.

In this second addendum to an appeal judgment, the Court of Appeal for Ontario resolved an outstanding issue regarding the calculation of partnership net profits for the purpose of finalizing damages.

The appellants provided evidence of a tax payment of $8,348.36 to the Canada Revenue Agency for the years 2014 to 2017.

The court ordered that this amount be deducted from the corporation's net income to determine the after-tax income for recalculating the damages owed to the respondent.

The appellant, Jason Gallant, appealed his sentence.

After oral arguments were heard and the decision was reserved, the appellant passed away.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the appellant's death caused the appeal to abate.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to exercise its residual discretion to hear the appeal, the court dismissed the appeal as abated.

The respondent, Dani Building System Inc., moved to quash an appeal brought by the appellants, the Hossains, regarding a construction lien dispute.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from reference reports under the Construction Act must be directed to the Divisional Court.

The court also declined to transfer the appeal to the Divisional Court because the appellants had failed to timely oppose the confirmation of the report in the court below.

Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order holding them liable for a mortgage shortfall following a power of sale.

They argued that the motion judge erred in determining the sale price of the property was $1,100,000 rather than $1,925,000, pointing to conflicting information in a registered Land Transfer Tax statement.

They also contended the motion judge improperly rectified the document and reversed the burden of proof under the Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the legislation.

The appellant challenged his jury convictions for historical sexual offences against his niece, arguing that the trial judge misdirected the jury on credibility, eyewitness identification, and recovered memory evidence, and also sought to file fresh evidence about juror conduct.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury charge, read as a whole, adequately explained the law and fairly addressed the defence concerns, including the frailties of the eyewitness evidence.

The court admitted the fresh evidence about a juror’s post-verdict Facebook message and the foreperson’s note, but found it did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was therefore dismissed.