Ian V.B. Nordheimer

The appellant sought to sell 15 gas stations in Ontario and Quebec, requiring the assignment of leases and credit/debit card agreements.

The respondent refused to consent to the assignments unless the appellant agreed to a five-year contract extension.

The application judge found the refusal unreasonable for the leases but dismissed the application entirely due to Quebec choice of law and forum selection clauses in some leases.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the judge erred by not granting relief for the Ontario stations, by failing to apply the strong cause test to depart from the forum selection clauses, and by not finding that the duty of good faith precluded the respondent from unreasonably withholding consent to the credit/debit card agreements.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the appeal and awarded costs of $3,500 to the respondent.

Unbeknownst to the panel, the parties had reached an agreement that if the appeal was dismissed, the respondent would receive $11,000 for costs.

The court amended its reasons to reflect the parties' agreement, awarding $11,000 in costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for breach of an oral agreement and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a commercial development project.

The trial judge found that the individual appellant sold the project without disclosing it to the investors, misappropriated the proceeds, and lied for years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on the existence of the oral contract, credibility, piercing the corporate veil to find personal liability, and the award of punitive damages.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her counterclaim for intentional infliction of mental distress, negligence, and other claims following a summary trial.

The dispute arose from a history of conflict between neighbours, including previous vandalism by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including his rejection of the appellant's psychological evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision not to grant a permanent injunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for deferred rent owed to the respondent landlord.

The parties had agreed to defer rent payments until the appellant settled a lawsuit with a third party.

The appellant argued there was no agreement and that a release signed in a prior small claims action barred the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a clear contract existed and that the general release did not cover the contingent loan for deferred rent.

The appellant, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity for multiple murders and sexual offences in the 1970s and 1980s, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a high-security facility.

At his annual review, all parties jointly submitted that he should be transferred to a less secure facility for a 90-day independent psychiatric assessment to explore a potential move to a less secure environment.

The Board rejected the joint submission.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain its rejection of the joint submission, misapprehended the evidence regarding the utility of the assessment, and failed to fulfill its inquisitorial duty to explore the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The respondent, having successfully defended an appeal, sought costs of $17,818.44.

The appellant did not dispute the entitlement to costs but argued the quantum was excessive, noting he would have sought only $9,152.95 had he been successful.

The Court of Appeal agreed the requested amount was high given there was no oral hearing, and fixed the costs payable to the respondent at $9,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, incest, and sexual interference against his daughter.

He argued the trial judge erred by improperly relying on principles of delayed disclosure to excuse inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons for his credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the law, grappled with the inconsistencies, and provided reasons sufficient for appellate review.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial due to inadequate reasons.

The appellant, a medical student, was convicted of internet child luring after initiating a sexually explicit conversation with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl in an adult chat room.

He appealed his conviction, arguing entrapment and a violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police did not provide an opportunity to commit the offence, as the appellant initiated the contact and escalated the sexual nature of the conversation despite being told the persona was underage.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's right to counsel was not infringed, as he understood his rights and consulted duty counsel.

The appellant was convicted of fraud and theft over $5,000 for operating a large-scale Ponzi scheme that defrauded 41 victims of over $10 million.

He was sentenced to the maximum term of 14 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by using the appellant's lack of remorse and exercise of his right to trial as an aggravating factor to justify the maximum sentence.

The Court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to 10 years' imprisonment, maintaining the restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture orders.

The appellant, an independent agent for the respondent financial services company, appealed the dismissal of his application for an order requiring the respondent to pay service commissions.

The respondent had changed its policy to make service commissions dependent on new sales performance.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the contract permitted the respondent to modify pay arrangements and impose minimum performance standards upon notice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed his convictions for multiple swatting incidents, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The net delay was approximately three years, exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the delay was justified by the exceptional circumstance of the case's complexity, which involved highly technical computer forensic evidence, voluminous disclosure, and multiple jurisdictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a young person, appealed convictions for sexual assault and failing to comply with a youth court order.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on consent, alleging misapprehensions of evidence and uneven scrutiny of testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's assessment of credibility and the inferences drawn from the evidence, finding no reversible error.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, failing to comply, and uttering a threat to an animal.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on the evidence of two witnesses due to alleged inconsistencies and omissions, and challenged the admission of a prior sworn statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings and noting the prior statement was admitted on consent.

The appeal was dismissed, save for setting aside the victim fine surcharges.

The appellant, Mahmoud Hannora, appealed his total sentence of seven years for unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, possession of a firearm while prohibited, and receiving material benefit from sexual services.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred by failing to properly apply the totality principle to the overall sentence, which resulted in a sentence that outstripped the appellant's overall culpability, especially considering his positive prospects for rehabilitation and remorse.

The Court reduced the total sentence from seven years to four years by making the sentence for receiving material benefit concurrent to the other two counts.

The victim fine surcharge was also set aside.

The appellant, a former lawyer whose license was revoked, appealed a motion judge's decision to dismiss his action against 11 of 16 defendants under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the Law Society Tribunal and Legal Aid Ontario, finding the claims abusive due to outstanding appeals and multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, reinstating claims against Doctor Michael Colleton and the Hamilton Police Service, ruling that these claims were not "clearest of cases" for Rule 2.1 dismissal and involved complex legal issues (e.g., absolute privilege, negligent investigation) better suited for a Rule 21 motion.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a fraud charge, arguing the trial judge erred in his approach to the mens rea for fraud.

The respondent had lied about progress and used funds for other projects due to cash flow issues, believing he could resolve the situation.

The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that a "sanguine belief" does not negate the mens rea for fraud, which requires subjective knowledge of the prohibited act and the risk of deprivation.

The court found the trial judge erred in law and that the Crown was not advancing a new theory of guilt.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered, as the trial judge's factual findings were insufficient to substitute a conviction.

The appellant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a young person and sentenced to ten months' incarceration after sexually assaulting his partner's child during a massage.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's statements, and imposed an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no significant inconsistencies, and that the sentence was fit given the appellant's position of trust.

The appellant, Brandon Morgan, appealed his sentence for aggravated assault and failing to comply with court orders, seeking a reduction due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his incarceration conditions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that while judicial notice could be taken of the pandemic's general impact, the requested sentence reduction would render the sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's blameworthiness, even considering collateral consequences.

The court noted that the original sentence was already lenient and that parole authorities could consider the pandemic's impact.

Duane Anderson appealed a decision by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention order and imposed a condition prohibiting non-medical use of alcohol or drugs, specifically recreational cannabis.

The appellant argued the condition was not the least restrictive and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis.

The Court of Appeal found that the ORB was entitled to rely on expert psychiatric evidence that cannabis generally exacerbates psychotic symptoms, coupled with evidence of a prior aggressive incident linked to the appellant's excessive cannabis use.

Given the conceded significant risk to public safety, the Board was not required to wait for an actual adverse event.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ORB's condition.