J. M. Labrosse

The appellant challenged convictions for trafficking and conspiracy to traffic in heroin arising from two undercover drug transactions supported by surveillance, intercepted telephone conversations, and undercover officer evidence.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence compellingly established knowledge and participation in the conspiracy, and rejected arguments that the trial judge failed to identify the evidentiary basis for conviction or reversed the burden of proof.

Applying the co-conspirator evidence framework, the court found no basis to interfere with the convictions.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the custodial term from eleven years to eight years, placing the appellant at the lower end of the accepted range.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual offences involving two stepdaughters and also appealed a nine-year sentence.

The court held that although the jury charge pre-dated the governing reasonable doubt instruction case and did not expressly address the third branch of the credibility framework, the charge as a whole adequately conveyed the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the requirement that the verdict be based on the evidence.

The court rejected challenges to the answer to a jury question, the gross indecency charge, and the use of similar fact evidence, noting the limiting instruction and the strength of the Crown's case.

The sentence was held to be fit given the repeated abuse of trust and serious abuse of children in the appellant's care.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant challenged a trial judgment arising from a matrimonial dispute involving custody and access, equalization, support, credibility findings, and costs.

He alleged unfairness, bias, evidentiary errors, and error in failing to interview the children.

The court held the appeal was an impermissible attempt to retry the case, found the allegations against the trial judge groundless, and held there was no basis to interfere with the custody determination or the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged an order refusing to set aside an earlier summary judgment enforcing a foreign judgment and permitting amendment of the judgment to accord with the statutory foreign-currency conversion provision.

The court held that the amendment under s. 121(1) of the Courts of Justice Act did not introduce a new cause of action, did not seek further damages, and merely brought the Ontario judgment into conformity with the amount awarded in the foreign judgment.

Because the appellant had ample opportunity to raise any limitation defence before summary judgment and the amendment created no new substantive rights or prejudice, the limitation argument failed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants challenged a stay of their Ontario action arising from commercial loans financing a hotel, casino and beach club project in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

The Court of Appeal held that while the alleged tortious conduct of bank officers in Toronto created a substantial connection to Ontario, the overall circumstances established a more real and substantial connection to the foreign jurisdiction.

The court upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the foreign forum was the more natural, convenient and appropriate forum, given the governing law clause, administration of the loans, attornment to foreign proceedings, witness location, and risk of inconsistent findings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim arising from the loss of part of a shipment of watches seized by Bahamian authorities after customs documentation was incorrectly completed.

The court held that the respondent carrier had contracted not only to provide customs clearance services but also to deliver the shipment with customs clearance to the consignee's business address.

The consignee's conduct in attempting to obtain customs clearance did not break the chain of responsibility because, for that purpose, it acted as the carrier's agent.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was directed for the full claim together with pre-judgment interest and costs.

Investors appealed the dismissal of their action against a law firm arising from a failed investment transaction in which they lost all monies advanced.

The appeal challenged findings that a prior judgment did not retroactively create a constructive trust, that no solicitor-client or fiduciary relationship existed between the solicitor and the investors, and that the solicitor had not breached any duty of care in relation to disclosure, mortgages, or fund disbursements.

The court held the factual findings were supported by the record, applied the fiduciary-duty indicia from Lac Minerals, and emphasized the conflict concerns in imposing fiduciary obligations on solicitors toward non-clients.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged multiple jury convictions arising from offences involving explosives, a bank explosion, and threats against a judge and police headquarters, and also sought to challenge sentence.

The court rejected alleged errors respecting the jury instructions on assessment of evidence, unanimity, reasonable doubt, and recent possession, and held the verdicts on the threatening counts were reasonable.

Although the trial judge erred in limiting consideration of the entrapment application to trial evidence, the court found no prejudice, concluded entrapment was not established, and would in any event apply the proviso.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the 12-year sentence was upheld.

The appellant challenged an order concerning the termination date for child support and resulting arrears.

The court held that, although the record was unsatisfactory, the child remained dependent only until completion of secondary school in June 1995, and the reasonable inference was that dependency ended by December 1995 because there was no evidence of further planned schooling and the child had subsequent employment income.

The order below was varied to reduce the principal arrears and recalculate interest using the same ratio applied by the motions judge.

In all other respects, the appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and related offences following a jury trial, and sought leave to appeal sentence.

The court accepted that the line-up procedure was flawed and that the trial judge omitted the second step of the W.D. instruction, but held the identification evidence was collateral and the appellant suffered no prejudice given the overwhelming hot-pursuit evidence.

The allegation of bias or improper judicial interference was rejected.

The court found the 15-year sentence offended the parity principle and reduced it to eight years concurrent on the robbery counts plus one year consecutive for the weapons conviction.

The appellant appealed convictions for four sexual offences against his step-daughter and sought leave to appeal a five-year sentence.

He argued that the trial judge improperly assessed the complainant’s credibility and reliability on demeanour alone and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court held that, reading the reasons as a whole, the trial judge was alive to reliability concerns, inconsistencies, reluctance, and delayed disclosure, and was entitled to accept the complainant’s evidence.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, leave to appeal sentence was granted, and the sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual touching on five grounds, including unreasonable verdict, improper reliance on demeanour, reversal of the burden of proof through motive-to-fabricate reasoning, improper use of prior consistent statements, and refusal of a further sentencing adjournment.

The court held that the trial judge was alive to inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, properly assessed them, and did not improperly rely on demeanour or prior statements.

It further found no reversal of the burden of proof and no basis to interfere with the refusal of an additional adjournment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application with certiorari in aid following committal for trial on a charge of second degree murder.

She alleged denial of natural justice at the preliminary inquiry based on limits on cross-examination, continuation of the inquiry during her absence, inadequate assistance while unrepresented, and failure to conduct a fitness hearing during the inquiry.

The court held there was no denial of natural justice and no loss of jurisdiction, noting that irrelevant questioning was properly curtailed, witnesses heard in her absence were later recalled for cross-examination, and fitness had already been addressed.

The appeal was dismissed.

In a family law appeal concerning spousal support after a long-term marriage, the appellant challenged a trial judgment that failed to make findings on disputed issues or explain the support award.

Although the inadequacy of the reasons would normally have warranted a new trial, the court chose to determine the matter on the existing record to avoid further hardship to the parties.

The court rejected both parties' income positions as unrealistic, imputed a higher annual income to the payor than he asserted, and fixed support at $2,500 per month.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the support award, but costs of both the trial and the appeal were awarded to the respondent.