Grant Huscroft

The appellant appealed his conviction for break and enter and sexual assault of a police officer, as well as his sentence of time served.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to address the appellant's apparent intoxication in the context of the specific intent offence of break and enter.

Both counsel agreed to substitute a conviction for forcible entry contrary to s. 72(1) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant's conviction for sexual assault was upheld as the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and credibility.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The victim fine surcharge was set aside on consent.

The appellant appealed his sentence of three years imposed for robbery and dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge should have imposed concurrent rather than consecutive sentences.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach, which balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation prospects.

The court dismissed the appeal but set aside the $400 victim fine surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for receiving a financial benefit from sexual services contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

Duty counsel argued that the trial judge erred in applying the presumption under subsection (3) when other findings suggested uncertainty about whether the complainant gave all earnings to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the presumption and noting that the trial judge's findings regarding control for a second charge did not undermine the presumption's application.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order in favour of the respondent bank for approximately $275,000 in debt owed by a corporation and guaranteed by the appellants on a joint and several basis.

The appellants' counterclaim was based on allegations that they relied on advice from the bank's small business advisor who failed to warn them of problems in establishing and operating their Second Cup franchise.

The motion judge found the advisor played a limited role, the appellants did not rely exclusively on the advisor, and the appellants had signed documentation limiting the bank's liability.

The motion judge also found no causal connection between any alleged failures by the bank and the failure of the business.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing his application for judicial review of a Director Delegate's decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Divisional Court's application of the appropriate standard of review.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Appeal from a trial judgment concerning improper termination of a commercial restaurant lease and illegal distraint of chattels.

The trial judge found the lease termination proper but the distraint illegal, awarding conversion damages of $58,190.74, punitive damages of $10,000, and costs.

The appellate court allowed the appeal in part, reducing conversion damages to $18,539.71 after careful analysis of which items were properly subject to distraint, upheld the punitive damages award, set aside personal liability of the corporate principal, and remitted the costs issue for written submissions.

The appellant Wi2Wi Corporation appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 25, 2018.

The parties settled the appeal prior to hearing.

The appeal was marked as abandoned and the parties agreed that the judgment below would be set aside.

The appellant leased commercial premises from the respondent with a right to renew for five years.

The appellant sublet the premises to a third party without reserving the last day of the head lease term.

When the appellant attempted to exercise its renewal option, the respondent claimed the appellant had forfeited its rights through an assignment.

The application judge failed to resolve this central issue and instead found a breach of contract with no damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 3 of the Commercial Tenancies Act permits a sublease even without reserving the last day of the head lease term, provided there is sufficient evidence that the parties did not intend an assignment.

The sublease language clearly demonstrated the parties' intent to preserve the appellant's renewal rights.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered by the Ontario Court of Justice.

At the hearing date, the respondent could not be located despite service of the Notice of Appeal and efforts by Crown counsel.

The Crown did not request that the appeal proceed in the respondent's absence but instead sought an adjournment to allow further efforts to locate the respondent.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the matter to September 4, 2019, with the Crown directed to be prepared to either argue the merits or request dismissal of the appeal as abandoned if the respondent does not appear.

The appellant appealed both his conviction and sentence from the Superior Court of Justice.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's finding that there was no breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter despite significant delay.

The trial judge had calculated net delay at 50 months, exceeding the Jordan cap by 20 months, but found exceptional circumstances justified the excess delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding exceptional circumstances and the Crown's reasonable management of the complex prosecution.

On the sentence appeal, while the Court of Appeal identified a factual error regarding the timing of professional credentials, it found the error immaterial to the ultimate sentence and upheld the sentence as fit.

An appeal from a Superior Court of Justice judgment was heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The appellant's counsel appeared and indicated that the matter had been resolved on consent.

The appeal was abandoned without costs.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case that occurred on an icy road during freezing rain.

The appellant argued that the motion judge applied the wrong test and failed to address the alleged contributory negligence of the respondent, contending that the respondent should not have stopped on the highway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and confirming that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test.

The court upheld the finding that the respondent did not act negligently in stopping her vehicle given the road conditions and visibility issues.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault, one count of invitation to sexual touching, and one count of touching for a sexual purpose against a child victim aged 9-11 years old.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's credibility findings and alleged errors in the assessment of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings were properly grounded in the evidence as a whole and that no reversible error occurred.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part, with the victim surcharge being set aside.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application challenging her committal for trial on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and cultivating marijuana.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that there was evidence capable of supporting the inference that the appellant was working at the commercial grow-operation on the day of her arrest and that the evidence, considered as a whole, constituted some evidence of her involvement as a party in the alleged offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision in which the motion judge found that the respondent vendors breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale by failing to deliver unencumbered title.

However, the motion judge limited damages to the deposit amount of $25,000 and refused to award damages for loss of bargain, finding that the benefit was illusory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that there was a real bargain and that the appellant was entitled to damages for the difference between the agreed purchase price and the higher price eventually paid for the property, totalling $187,500.

The respondents' cross-appeal was dismissed.

The Court also addressed the costs of both the motion and the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of drug-related offences and appealed on the grounds that the police obtained the drugs through an unconstitutional arrest and search, and that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated.

The trial judge found the arrest lawful based on the appellant's possession of marijuana in an open knapsack and a baggie.

The search was incidental to the lawful arrest and conducted reasonably.

Regarding the alleged s. 10(b) breach, the trial judge found insufficient evidence of prejudice and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's findings and concluding that the appellant failed to meet his onus to demonstrate exclusion of evidence was warranted.

The appellant appealed a sentence of five years imprisonment imposed by the trial judge, with credit for 1,226 days of presentence custody resulting in a custodial term of 599 days followed by three years' probation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the five-year custodial sentence as appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's mental condition.

However, the court agreed with the parties that the appellant was entitled to an additional 41 days credit for presentence custody, reducing the custodial term to 558 days (time served).

The court rejected the appellant's argument to reduce the probation term from three years to one year, finding the probation order with treatment and counselling terms essential to public protection.

The victim surcharge was deleted.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug possession, raising various Charter issues regarding the lawfulness of the initial traffic stop, the search incident to arrest, and questioning after invocation of the right to counsel.

The trial judge rejected all Charter arguments.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the initial stop was lawful based on reasonable grounds, the search was a lawful incident of arrest and not unduly intrusive, and while the questioning after invocation of the right to counsel may have constituted a breach of s. 10(b), any such breach would not have resulted in exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

Two appellants were convicted of sexual assault and related offences following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appellants appealed their convictions on two grounds: (1) the trial judge erred in finding that text messages and photographs had not been properly authenticated and thus had no probative value, and (2) the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to photographs upon which one complainant was cross-examined.

The appellants sought to adduce fresh evidence from a computer forensic examiner regarding the authenticity and integrity of the electronic documents and from trial counsel regarding due diligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied an overly stringent authentication standard, misapprehended material evidence, and that the fresh evidence satisfied the conditions for admission on appeal.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed a vexatious litigant declaration made under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants challenged the application judge's jurisdiction to hear the vexatious litigant application while serving as case management judge, the finding that they had acted vexatiously in defending proceedings, and the terms of the pre-screening Chavali order imposed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the declaration and all related orders, finding no jurisdictional error, no error in the assessment of evidence, and no abuse of discretion in the costs awards.