Gary T. Trotter

The appellant appealed his conviction for offences relating to the stabbing of a victim and his sentence.

The trial judge had provided extensive reasons rejecting the appellant's evidence, accepting the victim's evidence, and finding the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's treatment of corroborative evidence, including knife evidence and Facebook evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal from conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings regarding the complainant and his own credibility.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly address alleged major inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to criticize the trial judge's credibility analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence on the ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for refusing to permit him to testify at trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the record did not support this submission.

The cross-examination on an affidavit prepared for the appeal demonstrated that while the appellant may have felt strongly about wanting to testify, he ultimately accepted his trial counsel's advice not to do so.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered on October 17, 2013 by Justice Hugh McLean of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury.

The appellant made brief submissions on the conviction appeal and tendered fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's submissions did not call into question the validity of the convictions and that the fresh evidence was inadmissible.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed on June 5, 2012 by the Ontario Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 6 months less one day due to potential immigration consequences that were not known during the original sentencing process.

The appellant appealed both his conviction entered on January 25, 2011 and his sentence imposed on July 11, 2012.

The appellant's submissions consisted solely of attacks on the factual findings of the trial judge, including allegations that key witnesses were liars and challenges to the professional integrity of the police and prosecutor.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant abandoned her appeal from a conviction entered on October 14, 2016 and a sentence imposed on October 17, 2016 by Justice John B. McMahon of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant communicated with Crown counsel and decided to abandon the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and sexual assault on August 27, 2010, and sexual assault on October 31, 2010.

He was acquitted on one count.

The trial judge sentenced him to nine months for the August 27 assault causing bodily harm (concurrent with three months for sexual assault) and six months consecutive for the October 31 sexual assault, for a global sentence of 15 months.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the August 27 conviction but found the trial judge's reasons inadequate regarding the October 31 sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial on that count.

On sentence, the Court adjusted the sentences to account for immigration consequences not considered by the trial judge, reducing the assault causing bodily harm sentence to six months less ten days and converting the sexual assault sentence to consecutive rather than concurrent, maintaining the overall nine-month sentence for the August 27 incident.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the parties had agreed to reinstate a commercial lease and that the landlord fundamentally breached that agreement by insisting on additional terms before allowing the tenant to re-enter the premises.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings of fact, which were supported by the evidence.

The court found that the tenant had matched the landlord's terms for reinstatement and that the landlord's subsequent demand for additional payments constituted a fundamental breach of the reinstatement agreement.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal by Willowbrook Nurseries Inc. against Royal Bank of Canada.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondent bank in the amount of $20,000.00 all-inclusive for the costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and were properly reasoned.

The trial judge had provided ample justification for accepting the complainant's evidence and properly assessed conflicting testimony.

The court found no differential standard of scrutiny was applied to defence evidence and that the trial judge properly cautioned himself against treating the case as merely a credibility test.

Application for appointment of counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for an appeal of conviction and sentence.

The applicant was convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement following a two-day trial and sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment.

Legal Aid Ontario refused to fund the appeal based on lack of merit.

The applicant established lack of financial means but failed to meet the necessity threshold for appointment of counsel.

The court found that while some grounds of appeal were arguable, the applicant could effectively advance them without counsel, the record was manageable, and the court could properly decide the appeal without defence counsel assistance.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment in a land banking fraud scheme.

The appellant was served with the Statement of Claim on March 5, 2014, but took no steps to defend and was noted in default on August 1, 2014.

After an undefended trial, judgment was rendered against him for fraudulent misrepresentation in the amount of $276,031.06 plus pre-judgment interest, punitive damages of $25,000, and costs of $25,000.

The appellant did not learn of the judgment until September 15, 2016.

The motion judge refused to set aside the default judgment, finding that the appellant provided an inadequate explanation for his default, consciously decided not to participate, had no arguable defence on the merits, and that setting aside the judgment would undermine the integrity of the justice system.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and forcible confinement.

The trial judge imposed a sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

The appellant abandoned his sentence appeal and challenged only the convictions on three grounds: (1) the trial judge's instructions on the timing of complaints in sexual assault cases; (2) the trial judge's review of evidence relating to two separate incidents on both sexual assault counts; and (3) the overall fairness and balance of the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's instructions when considered in the context of the trial as a whole.

A nursery business appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim against its bank for breach of the duty to perform the lending agreement in good faith.

The appellant argued the bank acted in bad faith by refusing to extend additional credit and placing the account in Special Loans without reasonable notice of a change to the prevailing course of lending conduct.

The appellant also argued the bank's discretionary decision was objectively unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the bank did not breach its duty of good faith, that it was the appellant who sought to change the prevailing course of conduct by requesting additional credit without first repaying prior temporary overdraft accommodation, and that a bank's decision whether to lend new money is a subjective business decision not subject to objective reasonableness review.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder arising from a home invasion robbery of a drug dealer during which the victim was fatally stabbed.

The Crown's case relied heavily on testimony from the appellant's accomplice who pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The appellant raised four grounds of appeal concerning jury instructions: the failure to give a Vetrovec warning, the failure to give a W.(D.) instruction, the instruction on common purpose liability, and improper re-examination.

The appellant also appealed his sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 22 years.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that defence counsel's tactical decisions at trial were reasonable and that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in jury instructions.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 6, 2017.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge and argued against residing in a group home, preferring to live with either his friend or stepfather.

The Court of Appeal found ample evidence supporting the Board's refusal to grant a conditional discharge and its requirement that the appellant continue residing in the group home.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion for summary judgment in an action brought by the respondents.

The appellant sought to end the Ontario action based on a previously dismissed lawsuit brought by the respondent against the appellant in India relating to the same cause of action.

The appellant invoked res judicata and abuse of process defences, and relied on a provision of the Indian Civil Procedure Code.

The motion judge denied the motion, finding that the respondent had never been served in the Indian action and no disposition had been made on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's treatment of the Indian law provision or in the application of res judicata and abuse of process doctrines.

The appellant, a contractor, challenged an international commercial arbitral award arising from a US$258 million pipeline construction project in Madagascar.

The appellant sought to set aside portions of the award on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over counterclaims, failure to exercise jurisdiction over prolongation costs, denial of procedural fairness regarding retention monies, hydro seeding costs, and costs awards, and violation of public policy regarding alleged double recovery from forfeiture of tranche payments and liquidated damages.

The application judge dismissed all claims.

On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal, finding that the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the counterclaims, that the prolongation costs claim was addressed by the tribunal, that procedural fairness was afforded on all issues, and that the award did not violate public policy.

The appellants, a condominium developer and related entities, appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to the respondents for injuries sustained when an A-frame sign placed on a downtown Toronto sidewalk struck the plaintiff in the face during windy conditions.

The jury found both the developer and the sign contractor liable, apportioning fault 94% to the developer and 6% to the contractor.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's instructions on duty of care, apportionment of liability, and foreseeability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material misdirection warranting intervention.

The cross-appellant's challenge to costs awards was also dismissed.