James J. Carthy

The appellant tenant sought to renew a cottage lease with the respondent municipality.

The municipality argued the renewal clause was void for uncertainty regarding the duration of the term, and that it lacked the power to enter the renewal without Ontario Municipal Board approval.

The application judge found the renewal clause void for uncertainty.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the duration of the renewal term could be ascertained from the lease's express terms.

The Court also held that the municipality was exercising its proprietary powers, not divesting legislative powers, and that OMB approval was not required because no costs were to be raised in a subsequent year.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent for a shoulder injury and resulting depression.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings of fact, the admission of late evidence, the assessment of damages for future care and wage loss, and the costs award based on a Rule 49 offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's reasons that would justify intervention.

The court held that the factual findings were supported by evidence, the late admission of evidence did not warrant a new trial, the damages assessment appropriately accounted for contingencies, and the costs award was within the trial judge's discretion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claims against the vendor regarding a real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellants had agreed to purchase the property subject to a lease, an option to purchase, and an encroachment noted on the sketch attached to the agreement of purchase and sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim for loss of opportunity to develop property.

The Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge's reasons, finding no basis to consider the loss of opportunity a reality, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Dalimpex Ltd. appealed a Divisional Court order staying its civil action against Agros and others pending arbitration in Poland, and a Superior Court judgment provisionally recognizing a Polish arbitral award in favour of Agros.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first appeal, holding that the identity of the arbitral tribunal and the scope of the arbitration clause were matters best left to the arbitral tribunal where it is arguable that the dispute falls within the agreement.

The Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the provisional judgment and adjourning the enforcement application pending the final disposition of Dalimpex's appeal of the arbitral award in the Polish courts.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judgment apportioning 90% of the fault to it for corrosion damage to the steel roofs of two of its warehouse buildings.

The trial judge found the plaintiff negligent for failing to install a vapour barrier, which allowed condensation to cause the corrosion, and the defendant 10% at fault for failing to warn that its phenolic foam insulation contained corrosive acids that could accelerate the damage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff's failure to consider the permeability of the insulation and foresee the risk of moisture damage constituted contributory negligence.

The defendant's cross-appeal regarding its duty to warn was also dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing entirely with the reasons and conclusions of the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $5,000.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of charges against the respondents for wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, Roma.

At trial, the evidence showed the respondents targeted 'gypsies', and the trial judge refused the Crown's late requests to amend the information, take judicial notice of dictionary definitions equating Roma and gypsies, or reopen the case.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary rulings and noting that even if Roma are a subset of gypsies, the terms are not interchangeable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the appeal did not raise a question of law alone and there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in principle in the sentence imposed.

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

The appellant appealed a sentence of 18 years imprisonment (effectively 20.5 years) for extremely serious offences.

The Court of Appeal found that while a substantial penitentiary sentence was warranted given the appellant's background, the sentence imposed was outside the range for like offenders in like circumstances.

The court granted leave to appeal and varied the sentence to 13.5 years, representing a total sentence of 16 years less 2.5 years for time served.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued that the jury was misled by the trial judge's charge on reasonable doubt and that the verdicts were inconsistent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no merit in the arguments and concluding that the jury likely divided the incident into episodes.

The court also refused leave to appeal the sentence, finding no error in principle.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a sexual offence involving a young complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding reasonable doubt, eye-witness identification, and in exhorting the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the instructions proper.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately weighed character evidence against the aggravating factors of grooming and a quasi-trust position, making a conditional sentence inappropriate.

Following an appeal where success was divided, the court issued an endorsement on costs.

The court ordered that no costs of the appeal be awarded to either party.

Furthermore, the court declined to clarify its reasons, directing the parties to settle the order in accordance with Rule 59.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The trial judge cited senior detention centre officials for contempt of court due to persistent delays in bringing the accused to trial.

An independent prosecutor was appointed to take carriage of the contempt proceedings, and the trial judge ordered the Crown to remunerate him at his normal private sector rate of $375 per hour, plus $210 per hour for junior counsel.

The Crown appealed the rates.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that an independent prosecutor performing a public service paid from public funds should not expect private sector rates.

The rates were reduced to $250 per hour for lead counsel and $140 per hour for junior counsel.

The accused appealed their conviction, arguing unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, while the Crown appealed the imposition of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

On the sentence appeal, the Court agreed with the Crown that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and principles of deterrence.

However, based on fresh evidence demonstrating the accused's rehabilitation, good conduct, and family support over the past year, the Court declined to alter the sentence.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The young person appealed their conviction and sentence.

The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapplied the standard of reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence to support the verdict and that the trial judge was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt despite expressing himself inappropriately.

The appellant appealed her conviction and 16-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no evidence of abusive conduct by the Crown.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the custodial term to six months plus three years' probation, taking into account the appellant's current pregnancy with twins and the risk of her babies being taken from her if born in prison.

The appellant appealed a decision striking out her statement of claim against the respondents for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and other claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that the pleading failed to set out the necessary elements of the asserted claims and lacked sufficient material facts, relying instead on conjecture and conclusions of law.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals, stating they were in entire agreement with the reasons of the lower court judge.

The respondent did not seek costs.