Jonathan Dawe

Two appellants, addicted to fentanyl, set fire to a rowhouse using Molotov cocktails at the direction of their fentanyl dealer, killing three occupants and seriously injuring a fourth.

Both pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter and one count of arson causing bodily harm and received sentences of 16 and 17 years respectively, plus $250,000 restitution orders each.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's treatment of mitigating factors including addiction and mental health, and held the sentences were not demonstrably unfit.

However, the court quashed the restitution orders, finding the sentencing judge failed to weigh the appellants' ability to pay and imposed them as a mechanical afterthought.

Fresh evidence of post-sentencing cooperation with authorities was not admitted.

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.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding that a 2006 Transfer/Deed and Direction did not have testamentary effect, and sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant acknowledged the documents did not comply with the requirements of a valid will under the Succession Law Reform Act and could not identify a legal basis for their validity.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied as no reviewable error was identified in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

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.

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: Motion dismissed.

The appellants, a wife and a family company, appealed a partial determination of competing applications regarding the company's share structure and the beneficial ownership of a property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the application judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider relevant evidence, including the company accountant's testimony regarding the share structure, and by failing to address the presumption of resulting trust regarding the property.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a rehearing before a different judge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for specific performance of a failed commercial real estate agreement of purchase and sale, the denial of his post-trial motion to amend his pleadings to claim damages, and the trial judge's finding that a 12% mortgage interest rate offended s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to grant specific performance, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the property was not unique and damages would be adequate.

The Court also upheld the refusal to allow a post-trial amendment to claim damages, noting the prejudice to the respondent.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the mortgage, holding that the 12% interest rate commenced prior to default and therefore did not violate s. 8 of the Interest Act.

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.

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 allowed.

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.

The moving party sought review of a single judge's order dismissing a motion for an extension of time to appeal a 2017 conviction and sentence.

The court held that criminal appeal rights are purely statutory and that no provision of the Criminal Code authorizes review or appeal from a single judge's decision under s. 678(2).

Assuming without deciding that a panel might exercise concurrent jurisdiction afresh upon a material change in circumstances, the court found no such change on the record.

The court also stated that, in any event, the motion judge applied the correct legal analysis and made factual findings entitled to deference.

The appeal challenged Ontario recognition and enforcement of a German default judgment, relying principally on an arbitration-clause public-policy defence.

The court held public policy did not bar recognition where appellants failed to raise the arbitration point in the German proceeding and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed an order validating unsigned 2024 draft wills under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had executed a will in 2018 and improperly executed wills in 2022, before having new drafts prepared in 2024 that remained unsigned at his death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the 2018 will as fresh evidence, set aside the validation of the 2024 drafts because they did not reflect final testamentary intentions, and remitted the issue of the 2022 wills' validity to the Superior Court for fact-finding.

The appellant challenged convictions based on admission and use of surreptitious recordings, alleging errors under ss. 31.1 and 31.2 of the Canada Evidence Act and in probative-prejudice analysis.

The court rejected those arguments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant challenged an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

Following a material change in living circumstances and concession that practical utility of the appeal had dissipated pending the next annual review, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant physician appealed a trial judgment finding her liable for the respondent's catastrophic brain injury following an acute asthmatic attack.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the standard of care by delaying intubation and failing to call for help sooner.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly relied on a critical care note containing double hearsay and opinion evidence regarding the respondent's hypoxemia, and erred in his causation analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the note was admissible under the business records exception and as a party admission, and that the trial judge's causation findings were supported by the expert evidence.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) and detained at CAMH, appealed a Review Board disposition continuing his detention despite being designated as alternate level of care.

The appellant proposed a conditional discharge with a Young clause and treatment compliance conditions, or alternatively, living with family due to a lack of community housing.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the Board failed to properly consider the proposed safeguards, did not adequately inquire into family accommodation, and based its risk assessment on speculative concerns and unsupported assumptions.

The Court also overturned its previous decision in Negash regarding the enforceability of hospital readmission under section 672.93(2) of the Criminal Code.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay $495,888.39 in common expense arrears and granting vacant possession to the respondent condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's use of enhanced fact-finding powers to resolve credibility issues and reject the appellant's claim of having paid in cash.

The Court also declined to entertain a new limitations defence raised for the first time on appeal.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred by using the oppression remedy to expand the respondent's registered condominium lien to cover unsecured arrears, as doing so could prejudice third-party creditors.

The self-represented appellant mother sought leave to appeal a costs order made following a lengthy family law trial in which the respondent father was largely successful.

The trial judge had awarded the father net costs of $20,000 after setting off support arrears, noting the father's reasonable offers to settle and the mother's bad faith conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the costs award was not plainly wrong.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied.

The appellant was acquitted of possession of proceeds of crime after over $1.2 million in cash was excluded from his criminal trial under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown subsequently applied for forfeiture of the cash under s. 490(9) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge conducted a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, admitted the evidence, and ordered forfeiture.

On appeal, the appellant argued that his acquittal created an issue estoppel preventing the trial judge from finding his possession was unlawful or conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal did not logically necessitate a finding of lawful possession, and that a s. 24(2) analysis in a forfeiture proceeding involves different considerations than in a criminal trial.