J. Dawe

In a second addendum to an appeal decision regarding a partnership dispute, the court considered the appellants' payment of income taxes for a corporation.

Based on affidavit evidence and notices of assessment confirming a remittance of $8,348.36 to the Canada Revenue Agency, the court ordered that this amount be deducted from the corporation's net income figure to arrive at an after-tax income figure for the purpose of recalculating the damages owing to the respondent.

The Crown appealed the imposition of a determinate 9-year sentence and 10-year long-term supervision order on a designated Dangerous Offender.

The offender had committed new offences of domestic violence while subject to a previous long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the presumption of indeterminate detention under s. 753.01(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellate court held that the evidence did not establish a reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence would adequately protect the public, as there was no assurance that the necessary treatment and supervision would be available.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant, who had four grouped appeals pending in the inmate appeal stream, brought a motion for leave to add a new ground of appeal alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The proposed new claim targeted a different trial counsel than the one subject to an existing ineffective assistance claim that had already caused significant delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the appellant's delay in raising the new claim and noting that allowing it would cause substantial further delay to the resolution of the already dated appeals.

The appellant retained the respondent to provide strategic advice for a hostile takeover of a competitor.

The contract included a success fee payable upon the appellant gaining control of the target's management.

After an initial meeting requisition strategy failed, the appellant pursued a consensual purchase transaction without the respondent's involvement.

The trial judge found the contract was goal-focused and awarded the success fee and management fee to the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no extricable errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's interpretation of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a youthful first offender of Indigenous heritage, appealed his 17-month custodial sentence and the terms of a 10-year prohibition order under s. 161(1) of the Criminal Code for sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the length of the custodial sentence, finding no reversible error in the application of the principle of restraint or Gladue factors.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to vary the s. 161(1) order, striking an unlawful non-contact term, reducing a geographical restriction from 2 kilometres to 500 metres, and clarifying a supervision requirement to prevent the order from being unworkably restrictive.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.