Gloria Epstein

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing Arash Bakhtaryani at a banquet hall in Vaughan.

The appellant admitted to the shooting but claimed lawful self-defence.

The jury rejected the self-defence claim and convicted him of second-degree murder.

The trial judge imposed a life sentence with a 16-year parole ineligibility period.

On appeal, the appellant raised five grounds of appeal regarding the admission of hearsay evidence, confirmatory evidence instructions, cross-examination tactics, self-defence instructions, and jury instructions regarding videotape playback.

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

The appellant successfully appealed a summary judgment in a class proceeding.

The motion judge had found that the auditor owed a duty of care to the investor clients of Buckingham Securities regarding the audit of Form 9 reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, finding no duty of care was owed despite the auditor's negligence.

The appeal addressed the application of the Anns/Cooper test for establishing duty of care.

The court awarded the successful appellant costs on a partial indemnity basis.

This appeal concerns the admissibility of participant expert evidence in a civil jury trial involving allegations of sexual assault.

The respondent sued for damages for sexual assaults allegedly committed in the mid-1990s.

A mental health clinician who treated the respondent in prison was permitted to give evidence as a participant expert.

The trial judge admitted the clinician's unredacted reports and allowed him to testify about their contents.

The Court of Appeal found that the clinician exceeded the proper scope of a participant expert by providing opinions on whether the alleged sexual assaults occurred and whether the respondent suffered harm caused by such assaults.

The court held that these opinions failed to meet the threshold requirements for admissibility under the Mohan/White Burgess test and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

A new trial was ordered.

This is a costs decision arising from a custody and access appeal concerning three children.

The father's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all four grounds.

The court awarded the mother costs fixed at $25,000, representing 60-70% of her actual costs.

The decision addresses the presumption of costs in favour of successful parties in family law matters, the application of the Family Law Rules cost framework, and the impact of unreasonable conduct by both parties.

The court also addressed costs related to an unsuccessful appeal to the Divisional Court, declining to award costs for that stage due to the confusing nature of family law appeal routes in Ontario.

A class action was brought against an auditor for negligently auditing Form 9 reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission that falsely confirmed a securities dealer's compliance with segregation and minimum capital requirements.

The dealer subsequently failed and investors lost millions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the class, finding the auditor owed a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that no duty of care existed because there was insufficient proximity between the auditor and the class members.

The class members never saw or knew of the Form 9 reports, made no representations to them, and the interposition of the OSC and the dealer between the auditor and the class rendered the relationship too remote.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 years' imprisonment (less 18 months' credit for pre-trial custody) for making, possessing and distributing child pornography, sexual assault with a weapon, and sexual interference.

While babysitting his three nieces (six-month-old twins and a four-year-old), the appellant sexually abused them, filmed the abuse, and distributed the images on an Internet site devoted to made-to-order sadistic child pornography.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not demonstrably unfit despite being at the high end of the sentencing range.

The court emphasized the primacy of denunciation and deterrence in such cases and the unique and egregious circumstances of the offences.

An appeal of an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) offender with a long history of serious psychiatric illness, including sexual sadism and pedophilia.

The appellant sought transfer from Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care to a less secure all-male facility at either the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) or Brockville Mental Health Centre to access escorted community privileges.

The Review Board majority refused the transfer, citing concerns about diminished quality of life.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to meaningfully consider the appellant's reintegration into society and by failing to assign appropriate weight to the appellant's reasonable preferences and the objective benefits of transfer.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.

The appellants retained Birkshire Group Inc. to perform home renovation work.

After the relationship deteriorated, Birkshire registered a construction lien and sued for the balance owing.

The appellants counterclaimed and sued other respondents.

At trial, the judge awarded Birkshire damages and recognized a lien.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to address evidence from two witnesses called after the close of evidence.

The trial judge had determined this evidence was material to credibility issues but made no reference to it in his reasons.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons deficient and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order striking his statement of claim against the Crown without leave to amend.

The claim arose from the appellant's failed attempt to initiate a private prosecution and alleged that Crown employees instructed a court reporter to provide a false transcript and refused to assist with complaints about the transcript.

The motion judge struck the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the test under Rule 21 and that the appellant was attempting to re-litigate issues that should have been addressed in his abandoned appeal.

Manorgate, a residential home builder, retained Kirkor, an architectural consulting firm, to provide design services for a construction project.

After the City of Toronto requested a higher density development, the parties entered into a second agreement for a larger project.

Manorgate alleged that Kirkor made a negligent misrepresentation regarding the cost per square foot of the larger project, which turned out to be significantly higher than represented, rendering the project financially unviable.

Kirkor moved for summary judgment, relying on an Entire Agreement Clause in the second agreement that precluded reliance on pre-contractual representations.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding that the second agreement was a separate contract and that the Entire Agreement Clause excluded the alleged misrepresentation.

Manorgate appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in giving effect to the Entire Agreement Clause.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no extricable error of law and affirming that the Entire Agreement Clause was broad enough to exclude the alleged misrepresentation.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action arising from an assault during a soccer game.

Brandon Gomes punched Michael Da Silva during a match, resulting in injury.

The appellants claimed negligence in supervision and breach of the Occupiers Liability Act against the respondents.

The motion judge found no evidence that Gomes' prior conduct was predictive of violent behaviour, that the respondents breached any standard of care, or that the playing field was unsafe.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors and that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues for trial.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder at retrial following an earlier appeal that resulted in a new trial.

The Crown's theory was that the appellant arranged for someone, likely Daniel Di Trapani, to murder her husband.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's instructions to the jury, the alternative theory of liability permitting conviction based on an unknown killer, and the treatment of evidence from Teresa Mascia, a Crown witness who was declared adverse and cross-examined.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately related evidence to legal issues, the alternative theory had an air of reality, and the treatment of Mascia's evidence, while containing minor errors, did not render the trial unfair.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition concerning an NCR (not criminally responsible) accused who had been under the Board's supervision since 2005 following a nonviolent offence committed during a psychotic episode.

The Board concluded the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered his transfer from CAMH to St. Joseph's Mental Health Care.

The appellant challenged both the finding of significant threat and the Board's failure to consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat but found the Board erred in failing to consider whether a conditional discharge was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition available.

The applicant and its affiliates carried out a series of transactions in December 2007 designed to realize a tax loss to offset unrealized foreign exchange gains in the same taxation year.

The Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the claimed loss on the basis that section 98(5) of the Income Tax Act applied, rendering the transaction a tax-deferred rollover.

The applicant sought court orders to retroactively alter the transaction to achieve its intended tax purpose, relying on rectification and equitable jurisdiction to relieve against mistakes.

The application judge granted the order, but the Supreme Court's decision in Fairmont Hotels restricted rectification to written agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that the court will not exercise its equitable jurisdiction to retroactively alter corporate transactions to achieve tax objectives, whether characterized as rectification or relief from mistake.

The court also rejected rescission as an available remedy, finding it was not a voluntary disposition but a commercial contract, and that rescission is an all-or-nothing remedy that cannot be used for partial unwinding to achieve a specific tax outcome.

The appellants, Smiles First Corporation and Union Health and Dental Centre Inc., appealed the dismissal of their application under section 21 of the Commercial Tenancies Act and section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The core dispute involved a head lease assignment dated October 31, 2016, from the intermediate tenant to Smiles First, and the effect of the intermediate tenant's subsequent abandonment of the head lease on Smiles First's sublease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the head lease assignment was ineffective due to lack of landlord consent, Smiles First remained entitled to possession of the premises as a subtenant under the sublease, which survived the head lease surrender.

The appellant was convicted after a two-week jury trial of possession of a prohibited firearm without a license, possession of an over-capacity magazine, possession of a firearm with a defaced serial number, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He was sentenced to nine years and three months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in failing to provide limiting instructions to the jury regarding photographs of a firearm found on the appellant's cell phone, and in failing to provide a W.(D.) instruction regarding the testimony of the appellant's brother.

The Court set aside the convictions on the firearm-related counts and ordered a new trial on those counts, while upholding the drug and proceeds convictions.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence of four years' imprisonment on convictions for assault with a weapon, assault, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

He argued the sentence was unfit compared to his co-accused and that the sentencing judge should have reduced the sentence due to alleged Crown misconduct involving late disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the fitness of sentence, finding the sentencing judge properly considered relevant principles and the appellant's significant role in a brutal joint attack.

The court also rejected the Crown misconduct argument, finding the late disclosure did not warrant mitigation.

However, the court allowed a minor correction to the pre-sentence custody calculation, reducing the sentence by 13 days.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellant had bitten off the complainant's ear during an altercation at the complainant's residence.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the trial judge failed to resolve material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding the description of the attack and his drinking habits; and second, that the trial judge impermissibly speculated about the cause of the injury without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's credibility, that any inconsistencies were minor and did not undermine the core allegations, and that the trial judge did not speculate but rather accepted the complainant's uncontradicted testimony.

Crown appeal from a successful defence summary conviction appeal.

The respondent was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge convicted the respondent based on circumstantial evidence including observations of impairment, prescription pill bottles found in the vehicle, and the effects of the drugs matching the respondent's behaviour.

The summary conviction appeal court set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal, finding insufficient evidence that the pill bottles contained the drugs on their labels or that those drugs were in the respondent's system.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the summary conviction appeal court erred in applying an incorrect standard of review and substituting its opinion for that of the trial judge.

The conviction was restored.