Janet M. Simmons

On appeal from a motion judge's decision to enforce a settlement agreement, the appellants challenged the motion judge's finding that a verbal settlement agreement had been reached between the respondent's counsel and the litigation administrator of the deceased defendant's estate on February 9, 2016.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.09, in finding there was no genuine issue regarding intent to create a legally binding agreement, and in failing to consider whether the settlement should be enforced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 49 did not apply as no Rule 49 offers were served, that the motion judge's finding of a binding agreement was supported by detailed reasons with no palpable and overriding error, and that the motion judge had fully considered all relevant factors regarding enforcement.

The appellant was convicted of three firearms-related offences arising from his possession of a loaded .45 calibre handgun discovered during a dynamic nighttime search of his home.

The search warrant was issued via telewarrant and targeted the appellant's son.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the application of the Garofoli step six procedure, the reasonableness of the dynamic entry execution, and sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal his sentence of 21 months' imprisonment and 2 years' probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The appellant fell asleep at the wheel while driving under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine, causing a serious collision that injured two victims.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's arguments that the sentence was unfit, finding that the sentencing judge properly considered the relevant principles, the serious nature of the offence, the appellant's status as a novice driver, and the catastrophic consequences of the accident.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of trafficking cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marijuana.

He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment followed by three years' probation.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction on three grounds: that the trial judge reversed the onus by drawing an adverse inference from his failure to call his employer as a witness; that the trial judge improperly relied on cross-examination on an affidavit sworn as part of a Rowbotham application; and that the trial judge made adverse factual findings insufficiently grounded in the evidence.

The appellant also appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in not imposing a conditional sentence and failed to consider the over-representation of African-Canadians in the prison system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed dispositions of the Ontario Review Board dated June 23, 2016 and March 7, 2017 regarding her detention on a secure forensic unit.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and related offences in 2005 and 2006.

She argued that the Board's finding that she poses a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and that she should receive an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that she remains a significant threat but found that the Board erred in summarily dismissing her request for a conditional discharge without further inquiry into her current behavioural status and without considering whether her risk could be managed through a conditional discharge with a consensual treatment order.

The appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography and breach of probation.

On appeal, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on two grounds: (1) an admission in an agreed statement of facts regarding his mother's presence in the house was made without his knowledge or agreement, and (2) the admissibility of his video statement to police was conceded without his concurrence and without full investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, a substantial body of evidence independent of the disputed admissions would have supported the same convictions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appellant argued the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly drew inferences of knowledge and control based on the appellant's possession of a key to the locked bedroom where contraband was found, his attempt to enter the bedroom immediately after police entry, and the discovery of his social insurance card in a drawer adjacent to where drugs were found, along with buy money.

The court found this constellation of evidence created a powerful inference of possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault by wounding but acquitted of assault with a weapon arising from an incident where she struck her sister-in-law in the face with a glass during an escalated argument.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the verdicts were logically inconsistent as a matter of law, since both charges arose from the same conduct and the only contested issue was whether the blow was reflexive or intentional.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction for aggravated assault, and entered an acquittal.

A dual-status offender appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to decline his request for a placement review hearing as part of his annual disposition review.

The appellant had been found Not Criminally Responsible in 1997 and subsequently convicted of murder in 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in declining to conduct a placement review hearing where the appellant had not requested one prior to the scheduled hearing date, other parties were not ready to proceed, and the disposition review hearing was already significantly overdue.

The court noted that the appellant remained entitled to request a placement review hearing under section 672.69(2) of the Criminal Code.

An appeal from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated May 24, 2017.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for robbery in 2010, challenged the Board's decision to impose a detention disposition rather than a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued that a conditional discharge with treatment conditions could manage his risk as effectively as detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's disposition, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal test and that its conclusion was reasonable given the appellant's recent deterioration, non-compliance with conditions, medication non-adherence, and the limitations of the Mental Health Act in managing his risk.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal but sought leave to introduce fresh evidence and to appeal his sentence on the grounds that it was imposed without consideration of collateral immigration consequences that arose from amendments to federal immigration legislation introduced after sentencing.

The Crown conceded that had these consequences been known at sentencing, they would have affected the result.

The court granted the fresh evidence application, granted leave to appeal sentence, and allowed the appeal, imposing a suspended sentence with credit for six months less one day of pre-sentence custody and two years' probation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and hydromorphone found in a safe in the basement room he had rented.

The trial judge found that the appellant had knowledge of and control over the drugs based on circumstantial evidence, including that the appellant was the last and only person to occupy the area where the drugs were found, the landlord's credible testimony that no one else had entered the home during the relevant period, and the discovery of a key to the safe on the appellant's person.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge did not err in his approach to circumstantial evidence and that his conclusion was logically based on the evidence and free of error.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault by Justice G. King of the Superior Court of Justice on May 4, 2015.

On appeal, the Crown conceded that the trial judge committed reversible error in his application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this concession and found reversible error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered on the sexual assault charge.

The appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence regarding ineffective assistance of counsel was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing her medical malpractice, defamation, and negligence claims against multiple defendants including paramedic services, nine physicians, a hospital, and a medical clinic.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment on all claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals but amended the judgment regarding Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre to clarify that only claims relating to Triage Nurse J. Doe's actions on March 10 and 11, 2012 were dismissed, not all claims against the hospital.

The appellant's appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice conditionally approving a third-party litigation funding agreement for a proposed class action.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus only appealable to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional approval order was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties.

The order merely conditioned approval on amendments to the funding agreement; failure to amend resulted in dismissal of the approval motion, not from the order itself.

The appeal was quashed.

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside the dismissal of an appeal for delay.

The original appeal concerned a judgment ordering the applicant to pay amounts owing on a collateral mortgage securing a line of credit.

The motion judge found that the applicant's explanation for the delay was unconvincing, as he had an obligation to manage his affairs while out of the country, and that the merits of the appeal were weak.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the reasoning and dismissing the review motion with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant husband appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in which the presiding judge severed the husband's divorce claim and made substantive orders in favour of the wife, including orders regarding pension division and an extension of the limitation period under the Family Law Act.

The wife had not filed an answer and may have been in default.

The Court of Appeal found that while the court could impose terms to secure the wife's participation, it was not open to the court to grant substantive relief in favour of the wife that had not been sought.

The order was set aside and the matter was remitted to a different judge.

Appeal from conviction and sentence for criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm arising from a swing stage collapse at a construction site.

The appellant, a project manager, was convicted of four counts of criminal negligence causing death and one count of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after five workers fell more than 100 feet when the swing stage collapsed.

Only two lifelines were available for six workers, contrary to provincial law and industry practice.

The appellant had authority to direct the workers and was aware of the safety breach but failed to take corrective action.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the conviction and the three-and-a-half-year concurrent sentence, finding no legal error or palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of law.

This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 76(5)(e) of the Securities Act regarding insider trading and tipping liability for successive tippees.

The appellants received material non-public information about a takeover bid for Masonite International Corporation through a chain of tippers.

The core issue is whether successive tippees who did not have actual knowledge that their source was in a special relationship with the issuer "ought reasonably to have known" this fact.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Securities Commission's findings against Miller but reversed the Divisional Court's decision to overturn findings against Cheng, restoring the OSC's liability and sanctions determinations.

The appellant purchased an agreement of purchase and sale for a property containing a pub-style restaurant, golf course, residential apartments, and other amenities.

A dispute arose regarding whether the residential apartments constituted a legal non-conforming use under applicable zoning by-laws.

The appellant refused to close, claiming the deficiency was not remedied.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion for summary judgment and the action, finding the appellant had waived its objection through conduct.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the appellant had not communicated an unequivocal and conscious intention to abandon its right to rely on the deficiency, and therefore was entitled to return of deposits.