James C. MacPherson

The appellant, Claudio Hernandez Barrios, appealed his conviction for forcible confinement.

The conviction arose from an incident where he prevented the complainant from leaving his bedroom.

The trial judge found him guilty based on his own testimony, where he admitted standing at or in the doorway, thereby preventing her exit.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, claiming he had no intent to block the complainant.

The Court of Appeal applied the stringent standard for misapprehension of evidence, as established in R. v. Lohrer and R. v. Sinclair, and found that the appellant failed to meet this standard.

The Court concluded that the trial judge was entitled to find the offence of forcible confinement proven based on the appellant's own evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

David Grant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for harassment and breach of peace bond due to bipolar disorder and delusions, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition.

The Board denied his request for an absolute discharge, continuing his detention with privileges at a forensic mental health care centre, and imposing contact restrictions.

Grant argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant public threat, lacking evidence for a foreseeable and substantial risk of serious criminal offence if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the Board's expertise and finding its risk assessment reasonable, given Grant's continued delusions, cannabis use exacerbating his condition, and consistent fixation on the victim, concluding he would likely re-engage in criminal behaviour without supervision.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a sexual assault charge.

The appeal argued that the trial judge erred in analyzing the complainant's capacity to consent and subjective consent, specifically by misapplying the test for capacity and failing to consider all evidence, and by taking an "all or nothing" approach to subjective consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the G.F. framework for capacity to consent or in his assessment of subjective consent, noting that a trial judge is not required to explicitly address every item of evidence.

This is an appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) concerning an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats and possessing a weapon.

The ORB upheld a detention order, finding the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appellant challenged the ORB's finding of significant threat, arguing the evidence did not support it under the Winko test, and that the Board erred by not granting a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no fault with the ORB's comprehensive analysis of the Winko test and its decision not to grant a conditional discharge given the appellant's history of substance abuse, medication non-compliance, and aggression following a previous conditional discharge.

The appellant, convicted of multiple firearms offences, appealed his convictions on two grounds: misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge regarding forensic testing, and unreasonable verdicts due to the circumstantial evidence not eliminating the possibility of another person hiding the guns.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence was not material to the conviction.

It also found the verdicts were reasonable, as the inference of the appellant's knowledge and control over the hidden firearms was available given his operation of the studio and the nature of the hidden items.

The appeal was allowed in part, quashing the conviction on one count of careless storage of a firearm (Count 16) and entering an acquittal, but otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for drug and proceeds of crime charges, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel regarding a s. 8 Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant.

The appeal focused on counsel's failure to challenge the accuracy of GPS tracking data relied upon by police and counsel's agreement to allow the Crown to introduce amplification evidence from the affiant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no prejudice from counsel's tactical decisions and upholding the trial judge's conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for the search warrant.

Gurdev Singh Multani appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his conditional discharge after he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder (NCRMD) for uttering threats.

He sought an absolute discharge and also filed motions to dismiss the original offence and claim damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the argument regarding the justification of conditions was raised too late, as the appellant had previously agreed to the terms if a significant threat was found.

The court also dismissed the motions, stating it lacked jurisdiction to reverse the NCRMD finding on an appeal from an ORB disposition.

This appeal concerned an insurance coverage dispute following a cyberattack on CarePartners, a healthcare company.

A class action was commenced against CarePartners, and Aviva, their insurer, denied full coverage due to a Data Exclusion Endorsement.

The parties entered a funding agreement for defence and settlement on a 60/40 basis, without prejudice to coverage issues.

Aviva sought a declaration in Superior Court regarding its duty to defend and indemnify.

The application judge found no duty for personal injury claims but a duty for bodily injury claims, without allocating costs.

CarePartners cross-appealed, seeking reimbursement of their 40% settlement contribution and arguing that a new application by Aviva for allocation was res judicata.

The Court of Appeal dismissed CarePartners' cross-appeal, affirming the application judge's coverage decision and ruling that the allocation issue was not before the lower court, thus res judicata did not apply.

The appellant, a lawyer, sought declarations and mandamus to compel the production of aggregated civil trial data from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) for research purposes, after his initial requests were denied by MAG and the Chief Justice of the Superior Court.

The application judge denied the requests, finding that declaratory relief would serve no practical purpose and that the open court principle did not extend to requiring the aggregation of bulk data.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision to deny the declarations on the basis that they would serve no practical purpose.

The court emphasized that control over judicial information rests with the judiciary, not MAG, rendering declarations against MAG ineffective.

The Attorney General of Canada was initially named as a respondent but the application against it was abandoned.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The appellants (defendants in the original action) had repeatedly delayed filing a defence, despite extensions and changes in counsel.

The motion judge applied the principles for setting aside a noting in default, considering the full context, including the parties' behaviour and reasons for delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed given the defendants' prolonged non-compliance.

The appellant, Brian Kumar, sought a review of a single judge's order requiring him to post $5,000 security for costs before proceeding with his motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved allegations of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against Kumar, whose statement of defence was struck due to non-compliance with court orders.

The Court of Appeal panel dismissed Kumar's review motion, affirming the original order for security for costs due to his consistent pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The appellants, small and mid-size businesses, appealed a class action decision regarding business interruption insurance claims stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

They sought coverage for revenue losses, arguing that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 or civil authority orders constituted "physical loss or damage" to their property under their insurance policies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that neither the virus's presence nor the civil authority orders met the "physical loss or damage" criteria for business interruption coverage.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash an appeal brought by the respondents (defendants in the original action) on jurisdictional grounds.

The appellant (plaintiff) sought to appeal an interlocutory order from the Superior Court of Justice that removed his counsel of record.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that an order for the removal of counsel is interlocutory and must be appealed to the Divisional Court with leave, not directly to the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, the motion to quash the appeal was granted, and costs were awarded to the moving parties.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for various offences, appealed a disposition by the Ontario Review Board (ORB) that continued his detention at the North Bay Regional Health Centre.

The appeal raised two issues: whether the ORB unreasonably focused on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome to the exclusion of trauma and Gladue principles, and whether its decision regarding smoking privileges was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground due to the appellant's concessions on the detention disposition.

Regarding smoking, the court found the ORB's decision reasonable, noting the hospital's smoke-free policy and the appellant's past non-compliance with privileges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Joshua Gauthier, appealed his conviction for aggravated assault and his conditional sentence arising from an incident during a recreational soccer game where he struck another player, causing a fractured orbital bone and laceration.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings regarding mens rea, the rejection of reflex action and self-defence, and the characterization of the injury as "wounding." The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant's actions were intentional retaliation, not a reflex, and that self-defence had no air of reality.

The court also confirmed that the injuries met the definition of "wounding" under the Criminal Code.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the conditional sentence was deemed fair given the goal of general deterrence.

The appellant, Jorge Andres Pontigo, appealed his conviction for importing cocaine.

He was found with cocaine hidden in coffee bags at Pearson International Airport.

The trial judge disbelieved his testimony that he unknowingly took the wrong bag, finding he knew about the cocaine.

The appeal raised four grounds: failure to consider exculpatory receipts, error in finding tailored evidence, reversal of burden of proof, and misapplication of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first three grounds, finding no error.

While conceding the Browne v. Dunn error, the Crown argued it was harmless.

The Court agreed, applying the curative proviso, as the circumstantial case for knowledge was strong and the error did not impact the verdict.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking cocaine, arguing that the trial judge erred by not cautioning the jury about relying solely on uncorroborated police evidence of an accused's utterance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that police witnesses are assessed for credibility and reliability in the same manner as any other witness.

A specific cautionary instruction is only appropriate if an evidentiary foundation is laid, and a categorical approach is unwarranted.

The court also found that the prosecution did not depend solely on the undercover officer's evidence, given the seizure of a significant quantity of cocaine.

The appellant, Darryl Rusaw, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had convicted him of sexually assaulting the complainant S.S. after acquitting him on another charge.

Rusaw argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his post-incident conversation with a witness and erred in rejecting the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal found no fault with the trial judge's assessment of the witness's evidence and upheld the rejection of the mistaken belief defence, citing the trial judge's finding that the appellant took no reasonable steps to ascertain consent from the sleeping complainant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assaulting his former intimate partner on three occasions, breaking and entering, and criminal harassment.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's credibility findings, arguing that the complainant's evidence was contradicted by text messages and photographs suggesting an ongoing relationship and lack of fear.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, affirming that a trial judge can accept parts of a witness's testimony and that victim behaviour does not always conform to stereotypes.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a conviction for choking in committing sexual assault and sexual assault.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on the complainant's capacity to consent due to intoxication, the assessment of the appellant's credibility and mens rea, and the sufficiency of reasons for the choking conviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant lacked capacity to consent, the appellant's testimony was not credible, and sufficient reasons were provided for the choking conviction.