J. C. MacPherson J.A.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence and $2500 restitution order imposed on the respondent for arson.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons unsatisfactory and the sentence unfit for such a serious offence.

However, given the respondent's current employment situation, the court declined to convert the conditional sentence to a custodial one.

The appeal was allowed, increasing the conditional sentence to 20 months and ordering restitution of $12,000 payable in monthly instalments.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him and related companies to pay $229,080 to the respondents, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's reduction of the award by $174,944 and the refusal to award pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the action was commenced within the limitation period.

The Court allowed the respondents' cross-appeal regarding the $174,944 reduction, increasing the damages award to $404,024, but upheld the trial judge's refusal to award pre-judgment interest based on the parties' agreement.

The appellant father appealed findings of contempt and a suspended sentence imposed after he unilaterally removed his child to Bermuda, frustrating the respondent mother's access rights.

The father argued his appeal was timely under the Criminal Appeal Rules.

The Court of Appeal held that civil contempt proceedings arising from matrimonial litigation are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering his appeal of the contempt findings out of time.

The appeal of the sentence conditions and the mother's cross-appeal regarding child support and costs were both dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of sexual assault involving the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing errors in the Crown's closing argument, jury instructions regarding the application of co-accused evidence, alleged 'Miller' errors in assessing evidence, and the trial judge's handling of a jury request to re-read the complainant's examination-in-chief without the cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no prejudice in the jury instructions or the re-reading of evidence.

The sentence appeals were also dismissed, as the significant penitentiary terms were deemed appropriate for the vicious nature of the offence.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing her application for judicial review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's decisions.

The Commission had declined to deal with her sexual harassment and discrimination complaints under s. 34(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, stating they were more appropriately dealt with under the Labour Relations Act through her union grievance.

The Court of Appeal found the Commission's decision patently unreasonable because the arbitrator had not actually dealt with the human rights issues, and the Commission failed to assess appropriateness on a case-by-case basis.

The Court also found the Commission misunderstood its reconsideration power under s. 37 by requiring new facts.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Commission.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment issued by the registrar.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the registrar had jurisdiction to sign the judgment as the claim was for a liquidated demand in money.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to explain the circumstances of the default or present a triable defence on the merits.

The appellants were convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and unlawful use of a firearm.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, including the trial judge's charge to the jury on identification evidence and section 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds but allowed the appeal based on the Crown's closing address.

The Crown had improperly invited the jury to speculate on why one co-accused did not testify and to use that silence as positive evidence of the other's guilt.

The trial judge also erred in instructing the jury that a statement made by one co-accused to an undercover officer could be used against the other.

The appeals were allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault against a 15-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, misapprehended evidence, and reached an unreasonable verdict.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessment careful and the verdict reasonable.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found that despite a potential error in principle regarding conditional sentences based on pre-Proulx case law, the sentence of one year imprisonment and two years probation was fit given the breach of trust and the complainant's age.

The appeal was dismissed.