Grant Huscroft

The appellant commercial tenant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for breach of lease and granting the respondent landlord's counterclaim for rent arrears and property damage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay for repair estimates, excluding surreptitious recordings, and finding the landlord's refusal to consent to a lease assignment was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or factual findings regarding the unsuitability of the premises for the proposed assignee's auto body shop.

The appellant was convicted of importing opium after drugs were found in his luggage upon returning from India.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding his unrecorded out-of-court statements to police, the Crown's comments on his right to silence, and the scope of the W.(D.) instruction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions were functionally adequate, properly cautioned the jury on the right to silence, and correctly conveyed how to apply the burden of proof to the evidence as a whole.

The appellant company entered into an agreement with the respondent mining company to introduce business opportunities in exchange for a commission.

The appellant claimed an $8,080,000 commission after the respondent invested in a third-party company.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the respondent and the third party had introduced themselves before the appellant's involvement and that the appellant only provided publicly available information.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants sought a panel review of a single judge's decision dismissing their motion for an extension of time to perfect their appeal.

The underlying action against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. and others for alleged mortgage fraud was dismissed by the Superior Court as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellants argued the single judge dismissed the motion solely on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting the single judge explicitly found the grounds of appeal devoid of merit and the lower court's reasons cogent.

The motion for panel review was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for historical indecent assault against his stepson, arguing the trial judge engaged in uneven scrutiny of the evidence and provided insufficient reasons regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including the rejection of the appellant's exculpatory explanations.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons sufficiently addressed the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and uttering threats against his wife.

He argued the trial judge erred by engaging in propensity reasoning regarding an audio recording, misapprehending evidence of unconscious collusion between the complainant and her children, and applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the audio recording was properly used to assess credibility, the trial judge reasonably rejected the possibility of unconscious collusion, and the credibility findings were entitled to deference.

The appellant brought a NAFTA Chapter 11 claim against Mexico, which was dismissed by a three-member arbitration tribunal.

The appellant later discovered that the Mexican-appointed arbitrator had communicated with Mexican officials during the arbitration regarding potential future appointments.

The application judge found a reasonable apprehension of bias but declined to set aside the award, reasoning that the other two arbitrators were impartial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the award, holding that a reasonable apprehension of bias concerning one member of a tribunal taints the entire panel and cannot be balanced away as a minor procedural error.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and uttering a threat, arguing the trial judge made three errors in the jury charge.

The appellant contended the trial judge failed to provide a Villaroman instruction regarding circumstantial evidence, failed to instruct on a motive to fabricate, and failed to instruct that the accused did not have to explain the complainant's motives.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a Villaroman instruction was not required as the case was not wholly or substantially circumstantial, and that the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof without reversing it.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm-related offences, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter challenge to the search warrant for his home.

The appellant contended there were no reasonable grounds to believe the firearm seen in a video would be found in his home or car.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the issuing justice could reasonably infer as a matter of common sense that the appellant would store the firearm in a comparatively private location like his home or car, given he did not know he had been videotaped with it four days earlier.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and his designation and sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the defence theory and erred in finding his conduct intractable for the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge was adequate and there was ample evidence of a repetitive pattern of intimate partner violence to support the dangerous offender designation and the resulting seven-year sentence with a ten-year long term supervision order.

The moving party sought a panel review of a single judge's order that dismissed her request for an extension of time to review a previous order denying leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the single judge's decision that the moving party failed to provide evidence of intention to review, lacked an explanation for the delay, and that the underlying proposed appeal lacked merit.

The appellant abandoned his appeal after the respondents filed responding materials and brought a motion for security for costs.

The respondents sought costs of the appeal and the moot security motion.

The appellant requested that no costs be ordered, citing personal circumstances.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise any discretion to order no costs, noting the appellant had put the respondents to expense and had substantial unpaid costs orders.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the Aziz respondents and $15,000 to the Mallot Creek respondents.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a mother and her daughter and son-in-law over beneficial ownership interests in two residential properties.

The trial judge found that the mother beneficially owned one property via a resulting trust and held a 35.6% interest in the second property.

The appellants argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding intentions for the first property and that there was an apprehension of bias due to the immediate oral judgment for the second.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on resulting trust and property interests, and found no reasonable apprehension of bias, though it noted the immediate oral decision was not best practice.

The appellant, Seargeant Picard Incorporated (SPI), appealed a "boomerang" summary judgment order that found the respondents' (Saxbergs') action for breach of a construction contract was not statute-barred.

SPI argued the motion judge erred in the discoverability analysis and in granting the boomerang order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the discoverability analysis, particularly regarding the application of the "appropriate means" test under the Limitations Act, 2002, and upheld the boomerang order given the parties' agreement and the thoroughness of the motion judge's review.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The parties settled the issue of costs for the appeal.

The appellant, Anna Barbiero, was ordered to pay the respondent, Dr. Sheldon Victor Pollack, $10,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant, Anna Barbiero, sought to overturn the dismissal of a 21-year-old certified class proceeding against Dr. Sheldon Victor Pollack for unlawfully injecting Liquid Injectable Silicone.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, emphasizing the need for a "culture shift" in civil justice to combat delay, finding the Langenecker approach to delay out of step with the Supreme Court of Canada's Hryniak decision.

The court found the 21-year delay inordinate and inexcusable, and the appellant failed to demonstrate error in the prejudice analysis or the exercise of discretion.

The appellant, Bishop Girgis, appealed a lower court decision that interpreted and rectified a will to distribute proceeds from a property sale to the estate of the deceased's brother, rather than to the residuary beneficiary (Bishop Girgis).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the rectification on the basis that it gave effect to the testator's plain intention, despite disagreeing with the application judge's specific analytical path.

Costs were awarded against the appellant.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing the appellant's action as an abuse of process, specifically for contravening s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act by bringing an action within one month of delivering a bill without leave.

The appellant argued errors regarding the nature of retainer, procedural unfairness in dismissing an amendment motion, and reversal of burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, confirming the action was an abuse of process, and upholding the dismissal of the amendment motion due to lack of leave.

The appellants, David Case and Celine Loyer, appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable due to the complainant's "flashback" memory being unreliable.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's memory and the confirmatory evidence to be reasonable and not fundamentally flawed.

The dissenting judge would have ordered a new trial, concluding that the trial judge's reasoning regarding the reliability of the "sleeping flashback" was circular and illogical, and that the confirmatory evidence was overstated.

Both sentence appeals regarding a no-contact condition were also dismissed.