Grant Huscroft

The appellant was convicted of a large-scale, complex fraud and sentenced to five years' imprisonment with a $100,000 restitution order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's reasoning, noting that denunciation and deterrence are dominant for such offences.

However, based on sealed material regarding post-sentence events, the parties consented to a sentence reduction.

The Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to three years.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action under Rule 21 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's analysis that the claim was utterly unmeritorious and found no error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to each appearing respondent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal.

In this endorsement regarding the mischief conviction, the Court found that the trial judge erred by convicting the appellant without particularizing the property interfered with or conducting a separate analysis of the elements of the offence.

The mischief conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was charged with impaired driving.

A police officer, certified as a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), evaluated the appellant and concluded his ability to drive was impaired by cannabis.

The trial judge excluded the DRE's opinion evidence after a Mohan voir dire, leading to an acquittal.

The summary conviction appeal judge overturned the acquittal, finding the evidence admissible under the Criminal Code without a voir dire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that section 254(3.1) of the Criminal Code implicitly renders DRE opinion evidence admissible to prove drug-impaired driving without the necessity of a Mohan voir dire.

The appellant son appealed a judgment setting aside the transfer of his mother's home to him based on non est factum and undue influence, and dismissing his counterclaim for equitable remedies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting the mother's limited English, recent widowhood, and lack of independent legal advice.

The counterclaim was properly dismissed due to the appellant's lack of clean hands and prematurity.

The appeal and a related motion were dismissed with costs.

The appellants, foreign corporations and an individual, appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction or to stay it on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The respondent municipality sued for breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy regarding a waste management agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the respondent established a 'good arguable case' for jurisdiction based on the pleadings and evidence of agency.

The court also deferred to the motion judge's conclusion that Ontario was the appropriate forum given the torts and contract were connected to the province.

The appellant appealed an order appointing the Law Society of Upper Canada as trustee of the professional legal practice materials of a deceased lawyer.

The appellant argued for a neutral third party to handle the materials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appointment authorized under the Law Society Act and concluding the Law Society is the appropriate neutral party to manage and dispose of the client files and computers.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge applied the incorrect standard of proof, made erroneous credibility findings, and improperly drew adverse inferences from his failure to testify.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's decisions regarding the interest rate and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the balance of probabilities standard, made no palpable and overriding error in credibility findings, and properly exercised his discretion regarding adverse inferences, interest, and costs.

The appellant developer earned municipal development credits and sold the land with an agreement that the purchaser would pay the appellant the credits once established.

The land was subsequently sold twice without this covenant, eventually to the respondent, who developed the property and received the credits.

The appellant sued the respondent for unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent was not enriched because it had paid a premium for the property in expectation of receiving the credits.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the respondent insurance company did not have a duty to defend them in a defamation action arising from an internet video.

The application judge had concluded that the substance of the claim did not implicate the appellants as employees acting in the course of their employment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge failed to consider cross-claims and third-party claims, which established a mere possibility that the appellants were acting in the course of their employment.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellants' appeal from an order striking certain paragraphs of their statement of defence.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the order under appeal was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive defence.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appellant, a court-appointed interim receiver, filed a proof of claim with the respondent trustee in bankruptcy for its fees and disbursements.

The trustee disallowed the claim, and the application judge dismissed the appellant's appeal of that disallowance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an interim receiver cannot bypass the procedural requirement of passing its accounts by submitting unliquidated and non-approved fees to a trustee in the form of a proof of claim.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action to set aside three inter vivos monetary transfers and a testamentary bequest of Canada Savings Bonds made by his late father to the respondent, his sister.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding sufficient corroborating evidence to rebut the presumptions of resulting trust and undue influence, and that the testamentary gift adeemed when the bonds were placed in a joint account.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the father had donative capacity, was not subject to undue influence, and intended the transfers as gifts.

The Court also found the bonds did not adeem as they were never endorsed by the father and remained registered in his name.

The appellant appealed her conviction for sexually assaulting a five-year-old child.

At trial, the judge relied on the unlikelihood that a young child would have knowledge of oral sex without having experienced it with the appellant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by dismissing her application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant about a prior incident involving another child, which might have explained the complainant's sexual knowledge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's trial counsel had explicitly chosen not to cross-examine on the incident itself, but only on the motive to fabricate, and that the trial judge made no error in her ruling.

The Crown appealed a sentence order directing it to pay a $200 victim surcharge out of $170 seized from the offender upon his arrest for drug trafficking, with the balance forfeited.

The Court of Appeal held that a trial judge cannot order a victim surcharge paid out of funds forfeited as proceeds of crime, as the obligation rests on the offender.

Furthermore, the Court found the trial judge erred by reversing the onus regarding the forfeiture of the remaining $150, as there was no finding beyond a reasonable doubt that it constituted proceeds of crime.

The appeal was allowed, the offender was ordered to pay the $200 surcharge, $20 in buy money was forfeited, and the remaining $150 was returned to the offender.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle financed by the respondent.

After experiencing issues with the vehicle, the appellant defaulted on payments and returned the vehicle to the dealership.

The respondent sold the vehicle at public auction and obtained summary judgment for the deficiency balance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the dealership made misrepresentations and the respondent failed to provide proper notice of sale under the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a close relationship between the dealership and the respondent to attribute misrepresentations, and concluding that any failure to provide notice did not undermine the right to claim a deficiency absent proof of damages.

The appellant appealed his convictions and six-year sentence for sexual offences committed against parishioners while he was a pastor.

He argued the trial judge erred by denying a change of venue, delivering an unbalanced jury charge regarding vitiating consent, and that the split verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors and that the verdicts were reconcilable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the breach of trust.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that his guilty plea was invalid and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and fully informed, as the appellant had consulted with three lawyers and understood the consequences.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice, as there was no reasonable probability he would have been acquitted at trial given the victim's injuries and witness statements.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident where he touched the complainant and raised her skirt on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for sexual assault, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the original sentence of six months' imprisonment was wholly disproportionate for a first offender with 13 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

The appellant appealed a nine-month sentence for robbery-related offences on the basis of fresh evidence showing that a recent amendment to the immigration regime eliminated his right to appeal a removal order if he received a sentence of six months or more.

As a permanent resident, he faced near-certain deportation to Syria, where the evidence indicated extreme danger and likely compulsory military service.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance on collateral immigration consequences in sentencing, the court held that a sentence just under six months remained within the fit range for this youthful first offender and better served rehabilitation and individualization.

The appeal was allowed and the custodial sentence was reduced to six months less 15 days.