Jonathan Dawe

The appellants, operators of a long-term care home, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their defamation action under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP motion).

The respondent had posted approximately 100 tweets over three years on anonymous accounts alleging elder abuse and serious wrongdoing at the facility.

The motion judge found the tweets related to a matter of public interest and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made reviewable errors in her section 137.1(4) analysis by failing to properly assess whether the defamation claim had merit and whether the appellants had suffered harm, and by assuming the respondent's expression had value without conducting the necessary preliminary analysis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals of R.V.A., who was found guilty of repeatedly sexually abusing his daughter between the ages of 12 and 16.

The court addressed the trial judge’s reliance on an adoptive admission, the treatment of the stepmother’s evidence, and the rejection of the appellant’s testimony.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the nine-year sentence fit despite a possible error regarding aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Jitesh Bhogal’s appeal from his conviction for first degree murder.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism in relation to the alleged sexual assault, and by mischaracterizing expert evidence on the cause of death.

The Court found that there was no air of reality to the extreme intoxication defence on the evidence, and that any misstatements of the expert evidence did not cause substantial prejudice.

The conviction was upheld.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aris Saha’s conviction and sentence appeals for sexual assault.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s analysis of consent, including her treatment of the complainant’s alleged statement about “liking it rough” and her assessment of the evidence regarding subjective consent.

The court also upheld the 12-month custodial sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge properly considered the available sentencing options and relevant factors.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Hunter Smith’s appeal from his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault arising from a nightclub incident.

The court found no merit in the arguments that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to consider all relevant evidence, or erred in sentencing.

The court addressed the risk of cross-racial misidentification but found it was not a serious danger in this case.

The five-month custodial sentence was upheld as fit and principled.

The appellant, Justin Aghayere Omoragbon, sought leave to appeal his 26-month sentence for breaking and entering a dwelling-house.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by not accepting the 18-month sentence proposed by the Crown and later adopted by the defence.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no joint submission on sentence, no violation of the principles in R. v. Nahanee or R. v. Anthony-Cook, and that the sentencing judge properly considered the mitigating factors and the appellant’s circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Adan McIntosh’s appeal from the dismissal of his motion to vary a parenting order.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a variation, emphasizing the ongoing risk of wrongful removal of the children to Australia and Mr. McIntosh’s failure to pay support and costs.

The court also addressed the children’s preferences, the financial and emotional impact of the litigation on Ms. Kim, and the principles governing variation of parenting orders.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to re-open her application for leave to appeal a 2015 summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

This was her third such application, each raising similar Charter arguments previously dismissed by the courts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the application as entirely without merit.

The court further prohibited Ms. Hart from filing any further documents regarding her 2015 conviction without written permission from a judge of the court.

The appellant, Zachary Wittke, sought a fresh psychiatric assessment under section 672.11 of the Criminal Code, arguing that it would demonstrate psychiatric disorders relevant to his mens rea for murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that a prior assessment at trial already addressed these issues and that no new evidence justified a further assessment.

The court held that strategic decisions at trial and the absence of new or flawed evidence did not warrant a new assessment at the appeal stage.

The appellant, Ahmed Ali Debouk, appealed his convictions for extortion, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breaching a non-communication condition, arguing his guilty pleas were involuntary due to pre-trial detention pressures and that his Charter rights were violated by non-disclosure of a voice mail recording.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either ground, holding that the pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and that there was no evidence of non-disclosure or prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Kyle Watson, appealed his sentence for robbery and failure to comply with a release order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s application of the principles of restraint and consideration of the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing judge had taken into account the appellant’s Indigenous identity, personal history, and the conditions of pre-sentence custody, and provided appropriate credit for time served.

The sentence imposed was found to be within a reasonable range given the circumstances.

The appellant, Igor Kononenko, appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the trial judge’s treatment of prior consistent statements, the use of the complainant’s out-of-court utterances, and the application of the W.(D.) framework.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s approach to the evidence or reasoning, and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Ms. Yan’s motion to stay a vexatious litigant order made against her under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, as she had not obtained leave from a judge of the Superior Court of Justice as required.

The court held it was not appropriate to grant leave in its ex officio capacity, especially where procedural requirements, including notice to the Attorney General, had not been met.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

This decision concerns a motion for leave to appeal an order approving the sale of a property in receivership.

The moving parties, owners of the property, sought an adjournment to arrange financing to redeem the first mortgage and continue their affordable housing project.

The motion judge denied the adjournment and approved the sale.

On motion for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general importance, had little merit, and that granting leave would unduly hinder the receivership process.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Jason Windebank, appealed his designation as a Dangerous Offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence following convictions for violent offences against his domestic partner.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge’s errors were immaterial, that Gladue principles were sufficiently considered, and that the judge properly exercised her discretion in imposing an indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Jason Immel’s conviction appeal for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, finding no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or assessment of the evidence.

The court allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the sentence for possession of proceeds of crime to the statutory maximum of two years, concurrent with the fentanyl sentence, but otherwise upheld the global sentence.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to reopen her application for leave to appeal a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content over 80mg per 100ml.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed her application, finding that the Charter arguments and evidence she sought to introduce were neither fresh nor novel, as they had already been considered in previous proceedings.

The court held that there was no merit to the application and declined to consider its jurisdiction to reopen a decision not to reopen a dismissal of a leave to appeal application.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether arbitrators may order a higher-priority automobile insurer to reimburse a lower-priority insurer for pre-arbitration expenses incurred in handling a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claim, outside the specific circumstances set out in Ontario Regulation 283/95.

The court held that, except in cases of improper deflection as provided in s. 2.1(7) of the regulation, arbitrators do not have authority to order such reimbursement.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the arbitrator’s decision that Unifund was not required to reimburse Echelon for its pre-arbitration expenses.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Shahin Songhorigakien from a summary judgment ordering her to pay $500,000 plus interest and costs to the Bank of Montreal under a personal guarantee for a corporate overdraft facility.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial, that the bank owed no special duty to Songhorigakien, and that her non est factum defence had no air of reality.

The court also rejected arguments of procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed both the appeal and cross-appeal, setting aside the case conference judge’s order in its entirety.

The court found that the case conference judge exceeded his authority under the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to provide adequate reasons or an evidentiary record to support his decision regarding the existence and terms of a settlement.

The lack of intelligible reasons and evidentiary basis precluded meaningful appellate review.