J. Simmons

The appellant, who was previously found Not Criminally Responsible for criminal harassment and mischief, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining his conditional discharge.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable given the appellant's active symptoms of schizophrenia, lack of insight, and stated intention to stop taking medication if discharged.

The appellant pled guilty to possession of stolen property, attempted break and enter, and break and enter, receiving a 42-month sentence and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing there was no violence used, threatened, or attempted.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's actions, which he admitted scared the victims, constituted an implied threat of violence.

The appeal was dismissed, but the prohibition was varied to 10 years at the Crown's request.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2008, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention order.

He argued the Board erred in law by equating the harm of criminal harassment with a 'significant threat to the safety of the public' under s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not focus solely on the index offence but considered all evidence, including the likelihood that the appellant would discontinue medication and engage in physical and aggressive behaviour.

The Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 6 years and 7.5 months for multiple offences including break and enter, robbery, and assault.

He argued the trial judge erred in attributing presentence custody and sought a reduction of the global sentence to 5 years.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge misunderstood the Crown's position regarding presentence custody.

The Court maintained the 6-year global sentence due to the seriousness of the crimes but reduced it by the 7.5 months of presentence custody to make the credit meaningful.

The landlord appealed a summary judgment decision regarding its termination of a commercial lease.

The parties had orally agreed to extend the commencement date of the lease for at least one year.

The landlord later attempted to terminate the lease under a clause allowing termination if it could not deliver possession within six months of the commencement date.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination notice provided in December 2011 was out of time, as the commencement date remained April 1, 2011, and the landlord failed to exercise its termination right within the six-month window.

Judgment was granted in favour of the tenant for breach of contract.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting a man during a drug transaction.

At trial, the judge charged the jury on self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code but not under s. 35.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the unlawful assault requirement of s. 34(2) and erred by failing to leave s. 35 with the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury instructions on s. 34(2) when read as a whole, and concluding there was no air of reality to a s. 35 defence because the appellant, as the initial aggressor drawing a loaded handgun, could not claim he commenced the assault without intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

The appellant cashed a bank draft for a mortgagor who turned out to be a fraudster.

The appellant sued the mortgagee and the solicitor who drew the draft.

The trial judge dismissed the claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in refusing to allow an amendment to the pleadings after closing arguments, and in failing to recognize a new duty of care owed by the solicitor to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the discretionary refusal to amend pleadings and affirming that no new duty of care should be recognized in the context of bills of exchange.

The appellants sought to amend their statement of claim to add a claim in nuisance against the respondent for failing to properly remediate contaminated land before selling it.

The motion judge denied the amendment, finding that a nuisance claim requires the interference to originate from outside the plaintiff's land.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that an essential characteristic of the tort of nuisance is that the alleged nuisance must emanate from somewhere other than the plaintiff's own land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to undue delay.

The delay included a period following a mistrial caused by a misstep by the trial judge.

The application judge characterized this period as institutional delay, noting the unusual circumstances and the failure of the Crown or the court to canvas earlier trial dates.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusions regarding the characterization of the delay or the finding of prejudice, and dismissed the appeal.

The parties were involved in matrimonial litigation.

The wife, as registered owner, sold a commercial property and sought a writ of possession.

The husband opposed, producing a newly 'found' trust agreement claiming beneficial ownership.

The motion judge granted the writ, relying in part on an unsworn handwriting expert report refuting the wife's signature.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in relying on the unsworn report but upheld the writ of possession, noting the husband's prior financial statements acknowledging the wife's ownership and the need to preserve the favourable sale.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought to review a single judge's order refusing an extension of time to appeal an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition and a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) for criminal harassment.

The Court of Appeal held that the extension of time to appeal the NCR verdict must be sought in the Superior Court, as it was a summary conviction appeal.

Regarding the ORB decision, the Court applied a relaxed test for the intent to appeal due to the applicant's mental illness, but ultimately dismissed the motion, finding the ORB made no error and its decision to detain the applicant was reasonable.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting a challenge for cause based on her work in the sex trade and that the Crown's cross-examination on her notebook was unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the discretionary decision to decline the challenge for cause.

The court also found no unfairness in the cross-examination, noting the notebook was admitted on consent and the trial judge provided numerous cautions to the jury.

The appellant, a fuel delivery truck driver, was convicted of fraud and theft based on GPS and machine-generated delivery records suggesting he delivered fuel to a third party instead of his employer's customers.

He appealed his convictions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered acquittals, finding the trial judge erred by failing to explain why potentially exculpatory signed delivery acknowledgements did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove that the GPS and delivery slip systems were time-synchronized, rendering the records unreliable.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine, as well as his concurrent 21-month sentences.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and that the verdict was unreasonable because it relied on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and the verdict reasonable based on the evidence, including an apparent hand-to-hand transaction and the discovery of cash consistent with drug trafficking.

The sentence was also upheld as fit given the appellant's record.

The appellant appealed his conviction on the sole ground that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant an order under s. 530 of the Criminal Code that his trial be held in English.

The appellant sought this order to challenge jurors for language competency under s. 638(1)(f).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that there was no basis for a s. 530 order because the appellant's trial was already scheduled to be held in English.