Gary T. Trotter

The appellants appealed a costs award of $60,583.05 made against them following the dismissal of their application to assess the accounts of their former lawyers (the respondents), who were self-represented on the application.

The appellants argued the award was excessive because it failed to account for the respondents' self-represented status and should have been nominal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge erred in principle by treating the self-represented lawyers as if they were retained counsel and awarding costs on a partial indemnity basis without adjustment.

The court reduced the costs award to $20,000, all-inclusive, and awarded the appellants $10,000 for costs of the appeal.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The appellants sought to appeal an order of Justice Edward M. Morgan dated June 6, 2018.

The respondents were successful on the appeal.

The court determined costs payable to the successful respondents.

The appellant was convicted of internet luring of a person he believed to be under 16 years of age contrary to s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and transmitting sexually explicit material to a person he believed to be under 16 years contrary to s. 171.1(1)(b).

The latter count was conditionally stayed on the basis of R. v. Kienapple.

The appellant was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and three years' probation, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly analyzed the evidence and rejected the appellant's testimony as unworthy of belief.

On the sentence appeal, the Court set aside the victim surcharge but upheld the weapons prohibition as mandatory under s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The appellants made a one-million-dollar charitable donation to a mental health hospital for a designated workplace mental health program over three years.

When dissatisfied with the program's progress and reporting, the donor sought an investigation by the Public Guardian and Trustee under the Charities Accounting Act.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding no evidence of mismanagement or misuse of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's findings that the funds were properly spent on the designated program and that no public interest was served by ordering an investigation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000 and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in failing to caution the jury against speculating on the reason for his administrative leave, which he contended raised an inference of bad character.

The Court of Appeal rejected this ground, finding that the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury not to speculate about missing evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the appellant challenged a $75,000 restitution order to St. Anne's Church, arguing that compensation should have been pursued through civil proceedings and that there was insufficient factual basis for the restitution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the restitution order, finding it was properly supported by evidence and reflected the need for denunciation and deterrence in a case involving breach of trust by a priest who misappropriated church donations.

The appellant appealed his convictions by judge alone on three charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine, MDMA, and ketamine.

The trial judge found that the Crown had proven the appellant had the requisite knowledge and control of the drugs found in an apartment.

The appellant challenged the credibility of police officers' testimony regarding surveillance observations and the trial judge's reliance on certain facts.

The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of fraud in excess of $5,000 following an 11-day judge-alone trial and sentenced to three years imprisonment.

The fraud involved the negotiation of a stolen and forged TD Canada Trust bank draft in the amount of $1,895,751, which was deposited into a lawyer's trust account and used to purchase gold bars.

The appellant's role was to coordinate with an unidentified person inside the TD branch who facilitated the fraud.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

On appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellants' action for breach of contract and repudiation.

The appellants, who operated methadone treatment clinics, hired the respondent physician under a contract requiring her to remit 45% of OHIP billings and containing a non-competition clause.

Following the dissolution of the appellants' joint venture with another clinic operator, the respondent continued working at the jointly-operated clinics.

The trial judge found the contract frustrated by intervening events and that the non-competition provision was not breached.

The appellants appealed, arguing errors in the frustration analysis and interpretation of the non-competition clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings on frustration and contractual interpretation but allowed the appeal in part, awarding the appellants $8,194.59 for underpayment during the period prior to the alleged repudiation.

The appellant appealed from an order striking out his statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and dismissing his action.

The appellant had commenced an action claiming punitive damages, travel expenses, interest, and costs arising from the stopping, detainment, and impoundment of his vehicle by an OPP officer, asserting a breach of rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the pleading wholly deficient and incapable of success.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge applied the correct test and that the statement of claim failed to plead material facts supporting the alleged breach or theft allegation.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of 486 grams of heroin for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and her four-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the test for wilful blindness and that the evidence supported his findings.

The Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's difficult background involving serious violence, her rehabilitative potential, and her community involvement.

The Court also found that the trial judge erroneously relied on unrelated criminal conduct as an aggravating factor.

The custodial portion of the sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant town appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that its large-scale commercial aggregate extraction operation on property located in the respondent township was a permitted use under the township's zoning by-law or alternatively constituted a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The application judge found that the extraction operation was not permitted under the zoning by-law and did not qualify as a legal non-conforming use because the historical use of the property was as a municipal park with only incidental and ancillary extraction for municipal purposes.

The court found that the expansion from incidental extraction to large-scale commercial extraction constituted a change in the type of use rather than a mere intensification.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon following a jury trial, but acquitted of three counts of uttering threats and one count of assault.

All charges involved the same complainant, the appellant's former common law spouse.

The appellant was sentenced to 22 months less one day of imprisonment plus two years' probation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal on the basis that the trial judge erred by failing to provide the jury with meaningful guidance about assessing credibility, particularly regarding prior inconsistent statements made by the complainant.

The trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the significance of the complainant's initial denial of sexual abuse during her first police interview, which was inconsistent with her later allegations.

The Court found this error was reversible and went to the heart of the complainant's allegations.

A new trial was ordered on the sexual assault charges.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found no cause for termination and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period, a 2015 bonus, aggravated damages of $25,000, and punitive damages of $100,000.

The appellant challenged each component of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the notice period, bonus entitlement, aggravated damages based on the employer's threatening conduct and bad faith, and punitive damages reflecting the employer's strategic use of a counter-claim to intimidate the employee.

The appellant appealed a conviction under the Provincial Offences Act.

On the scheduled appeal hearing date, the appellant's counsel requested an adjournment without prior notice to the Crown prosecutor, who had interrupted her vacation to attend.

The trial judge, of his own initiative, asked the Crown if it wished to apply for costs and ordered the appellant's counsel to pay $500 in costs personally, characterizing the conduct as showing reckless disregard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and vacated the costs award, finding that while the conduct was inconsiderate and worthy of adverse comment, it did not meet the high threshold for a personal costs order against counsel.

The appellant appealed a costs decision made by a Superior Court judge dismissing an application for costs of approximately $100,000 relating to an arbitration dispute.

The arbitrator had awarded damages and costs to the appellant, which were subsequently confirmed by the Superior Court judge who awarded additional costs of $2,500 for the leave and confirmation motions.

The appellant then brought a new application seeking the full $100,000 in costs, which was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was solely as to costs and therefore required leave to appeal, which the appellant had not obtained.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

An appeal from a trial judgment upholding the validity of a codicil executed by an 87-year-old mother that changed her will to leave the residue of her estate to one son instead of dividing it equally between two sons.

The appellant son challenged the codicil on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and coercion.

The trial judge found the codicil valid after a 10-day trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings regarding testamentary capacity, knowledge of assets, and the absence of undue influence or coercion.

The appellant was convicted by jury of attempting to knowingly participate in or contribute to the activities of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group, and counselling an undercover police officer to do the same.

The trial judge imposed consecutive sentences of five years on each count, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 7.5 months with credit for presentence custody.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the conviction grounds and upholding the sentence as fit and appropriate for terrorist offences.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition ordering the continued detention of a not criminally responsible accused at Waypoint Mental Health Care.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, alternatively a transfer to another facility, or in the further alternative, an independent psychiatric assessment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the board's finding that the appellant continues to pose a significant threat to public safety based on his extensive criminal history involving sexual violence, his psychiatric diagnoses including psychopathy, and his lack of engagement with treatment programs.

The court dismissed the appeal but directed the board to reconsider the request for an independent assessment at the next annual review.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 26, 2018, continuing a conditional discharge for an NCR accused.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding she continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's schizoaffective disorder, substance abuse disorder, history of violence, lack of insight into her mental illness, medication compliance issues, and actuarial risk assessment placing her at moderate-high risk.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition fell within the range of reasonable outcomes supported by evidence.

The appellant, imprisoned as a dangerous offender for over 30 years, launched a habeas corpus application challenging the validity of his detention and warrant of committal.

The application judge dismissed the application summarily on a motion by the respondent, finding it was plain and obvious the application could not succeed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application should not have been dismissed without a full hearing on the merits.

The court found that the application judge misapplied civil procedure rules to a criminal matter and that the appellant's grounds were arguably unique and not frivolous or vexatious.