D. O'Connor

The appellant appealed from convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in his approach to collusion between complainants, failed to address a specific defence submission, and unreasonably admitted a videotaped statement after a two-year delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the potential tainting of evidence, that the omitted defence submission would not have affected the outcome, and that the trial judge reasonably exercised his discretion to admit the videotaped statement given the reasons for the delayed disclosure.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' incarceration for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the sentence was manifestly unfit and that the sentencing judge failed to adequately explore the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant was 29 years old and the trial judge properly considered and rejected a conditional sentence due to the harm caused by the drug.

The court found the sentencing judge balanced general deterrence and rehabilitation, and provided adequate reasons.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as statute-barred.

The appellant argued the limitation period under s. 281.1 of the Insurance Act had not begun because the insurer failed to provide the required OCF-9 form with its notice of refusal.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual finding that the insurer had provided the proper notice to the appellant's lawyer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed three convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in her credibility findings, that parts of the trial transcript were missing, and that the assault by gesture charge was not made out.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully considered the evidence and made findings open to her.

The court also held that the missing transcript portions did not affect the grounds of appeal and that the assault by gesture charge was supported by the evidence.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed in the amount of $15,000, all inclusive.

The cross-appellants (the sellers) appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of business inventory sold to the respondents (the buyers).

The trial judge had awarded damages to the buyers but reduced the award by 20 percent due to contributory negligence.

On appeal, the sellers argued the buyers did not reasonably rely on the misrepresentation and suffered no detriment, while the buyers argued the finding of contributory negligence was inconsistent with reasonable reliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of reasonable reliance, detriment, and contributory negligence were supported by the evidence and could co-exist.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference and sexual exploitation of his stepdaughter.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence of an audio tape and alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, inadequate interpretation services breaching his s. 14 Charter rights, insufficient reasons, and errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test, trial counsel's performance did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and the trial judge made no errors in assessing credibility or providing reasons.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under s. 745.6(1) of the Criminal Code for a 'faint hope' hearing to reduce his parole ineligibility.

He argued the application judge applied a higher threshold by using the phrase 'realistic probability of success' instead of 'reasonable prospect'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to resolve the semantic issue because the appellant failed to meet the statutory test given his lack of remorse, institutional misconduct, and the nature of his first-degree murder conviction.