Jonathon C. George

The appellant was convicted of historical sexual offences against two sisters.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cross-count similar fact evidence and prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the similar fact evidence had significant probative value that outweighed its prejudicial effect, and properly admitted the prior consistent statements under the narrative exception to explain the delay in reporting.

The appeal concerned whether post-closing transactions triggered accelerated earn-out payment obligations under a share purchase agreement.

The court deferred to the application judge’s contractual interpretation and factual findings, concluding no trigger event requiring immediate full earn-out payment had been established.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant sought to pursue a new action after prior proceedings and appeals concerning related allegations had concluded.

The court held the proposed appeal was a collateral attack and abuse of process and summarily dismissed it under r. 2.1.01.

The moving party sought panel review after a chambers judge refused to lift an automatic stay pending appeal.

Applying the deferential review framework for s. 7(5) CJA panel review, the court found no error in principle or unreasonable result and dismissed the review motion.

The appellant challenged dismissal of a motion for leave to issue a third-party claim, arguing limitation issues were wrongly decided.

The court held the motion judge made no error in finding the claim was statute-barred and rejected arguments premised on separate proceedings and later party discussions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder and manslaughter after shooting two men outside a nightclub.

He appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred by admitting evidence obtained in breach of his s. 8 Charter rights, misapprehending eyewitness testimony, improperly assessing the provocation defence, and refusing to grant a mistrial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's rulings or assessment of the evidence.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the 18-year parole ineligibility period as proportionate.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action arose from a social media post by the respondent about Halal mortgages, which the appellant claimed referred to him and his former company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the post related to a matter of public interest and that the appellant failed to show the defamation claim had substantial merit, as the impugned words did not identify him.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants, FedEx, appealed an order certifying a class proceeding brought by the respondent, who alleged FedEx charged undisclosed and unsolicited customs brokerage fees in breach of the Consumer Protection Act.

FedEx argued the claim disclosed no cause of action, lacked common issues, and had an overly broad class definition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the systemic nature of the billing practices raised common issues, and the class definition appropriately included claims that might face limitation or jurisdictional defences, which are better addressed at trial.

Appeal from convictions for dangerous driving causing death, five counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and failure to comply with a term of bail.

The appellant argued the trial judge's jury charge failed to distinguish between the actus reus and mens rea of the dangerous driving offences, risking conflation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the charge generally followed the model instruction in Watt's Manual, clearly instructed the jury on both the objective dangerousness of the driving and the marked departure standard, and when read as a whole equipped the jury to decide the case.

The jury question about the Highway Traffic Act definition of dangerous driving did not indicate confusion about the instructions.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant pleaded guilty to luring a child under 16 and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to his youth and first-offender status.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, given the serious aggravating factors and the requirement to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, arguing the trial judge erred by finding a proven absence of motive to fabricate or, alternatively, by improperly using the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not find a proven absence of motive but rather found no single motive could explain all disclosures, and that the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate was properly considered as one factor among many in the credibility assessment without undue weight.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his semen found on a towel worn by the complainant.

The appellant claimed the semen was present because he was having an affair with the complainant's mother, who used the towel to clean him.

The trial judge rejected this evidence, finding no affair existed and the explanation implausible.

The Court of Appeal found no misapprehension of evidence, concluding the trial judge's findings were open to her and the inconsistencies regarding the towel's location did not undermine the DNA evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death arising from a fatal ATV accident.

The appellant was towing the deceased's disabled ATV using a short fabric sling when his vehicle drifted left, causing the tow strap to become caught and the deceased's ATV to flip, resulting in her death.

The trial judge found the appellant was impaired by alcohol, engaged in an inherently dangerous towing operation without proper concentration, and that his conduct constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable driver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, no error in the trial judge's treatment of expert and lay evidence regarding the tow setup, and that causation was properly established for both offences.

The respondent moved to quash the appellant's appeal from a May 21, 2024 trial judgment in family law proceedings.

The trial judge had found the appellant engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, psychological abuse of the child, failure to honour support obligations, and efforts to alienate the child from the respondent.

The appellant failed to comply with a stay order requiring payment of support arrears within 30 days and continued to breach court orders regarding parenting time and support payments.

The Court of Appeal found this to be one of the clearest cases justifying quashing an appeal, citing the appellant's deliberate and unwavering breach of crystal-clear orders, substantial arrears, and pattern of vexatious and frivolous litigation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by the Attorney General of Canada from a certification order of a class action brought by immigration detainees.

Between May 2016 and July 2023, the Canada Border Services Agency placed approximately 8,360 immigration detainees in provincial and territorial prisons instead of Immigration Holding Centers.

The respondents challenged this practice as violating sections 7, 9, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as constituting negligence.

The motion judge certified the class action, finding that the Charter and negligence claims disclosed reasonable causes of action and that common issues existed.

The appellate court upheld the certification, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's analysis.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision requiring him to pay half of a gross negligence HST penalty pursuant to a supplementary investment agreement with the respondent.

The appellant raised new arguments on appeal that the gross negligence HST penalty did not form part of the HST assessment and arose solely from the respondent's alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the stringent test for entertaining new issues on appeal, as the evidentiary record was insufficient and no miscarriage of justice would result from refusing to entertain the new arguments.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple criminal offences involving domestic abuse and sexual assault of his former domestic partner.

He appealed his convictions on two grounds: (1) that the jury charge on myths and stereotypes was imbalanced and insufficient, and (2) that the jury instruction on prior consistent statements was inadequate.

He also sought leave to appeal his five-year sentence for sexual assault, arguing it was excessive and based on a misapprehension of evidence regarding his conduct in other relationships.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge, while not perfect, was functional and equipped jurors to decide the case according to law.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the five-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the severity of the offence and the offender's moral culpability.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing a firearm, carrying a concealed firearm, and carelessly storing a firearm.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The trial judge found that the appellant had joint possession of a firearm his brother displayed during an altercation at a McDonald's, based on the appellant's position and actions.

The trial judge also found the appellant was a party to the careless storage of two firearms discovered in an alley after police pursuit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding the trial judge properly applied the legal principles governing circumstantial evidence and that her findings and inferences were reasonably available on the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of possessing cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime following a police investigation that began with a confidential informant tip.

The appellant appealed on grounds that the police violated his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and that evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no violation of sections 8 or 9, acknowledging a section 10(b) breach but finding the evidence admissible under section 24(2) analysis.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from an Ontario Review Board disposition order dated December 13, 2024.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge or, alternatively, authorization for 14-day travel passes to the United States.

The Board maintained a detention order requiring continued residence at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health with community housing privileges and extended Canadian travel passes to 14 days.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no error in law and that the disposition was reasonable and not a miscarriage of justice.