John Laskin

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she acquitted on two other incidents based on unreliability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly explained why the evidence for the third incident was reliable despite concerns about the first two.

The respondent pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling-house and committing sexual assault under s. 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge initially imposed a SOIRA order but later rescinded it, concluding that s. 348(1)(b) was not a designated offence.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while s. 348(1)(b) is not listed as a designated offence, the respondent was sentenced under s. 348(1)(d), which is a designated offence.

Therefore, the SOIRA order was mandatory.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and indecent assault against the complainant, which occurred between 1979 and 1985, as well as his ten-month custodial sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of an uncharged incident, failing to give limiting instructions on prior consistent statements, and failing to instruct the jury on an alleged admission.

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

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the ten-month custodial sentence was fit and properly reflected the principles of denunciation and deterrence for historical sexual offences involving a breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the appeals in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker.

The court ordered that the costs of the appeal in McCallum v. Baker be awarded to the respondent, fixed in the amount of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The Crown appealed a global sentence of six years imposed on the respondent for three robberies of taxi drivers and an obstruct justice conviction.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in calculating pre-sentence custody, that the six-year sentence was demonstrably unfit, and that the obstruct justice sentence should have been consecutive.

The respondent conceded the pre-sentence custody error, and the Court of Appeal reduced the credit from 33 months to 11 months.

However, the Court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, finding the six-year sentence was fit given the respondent's youth and rehabilitative prospects, and that the concurrent sentence for obstruct justice was within the trial judge's discretion.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeal involved an issue of public importance, or alternatively, that costs should be reduced to reflect divided success on the issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding the issue was not truly novel and declining to make a distributive costs award.

The respondent was awarded costs of $83,875.85.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon arising from an incident outside a bar.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing his police statements under the W.D. principles and in assessing witness testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the reasonable doubt standard, correctly rejected the appellant's inconsistent statements, and was entitled to accept the consistent evidence of the key witnesses identifying the appellant as the assailant.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of first degree murder.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by allowing the accused to lead her lengthy, exculpatory police video statement as part of her defence under the Edgar exception for prior consistent statements.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge applied the correct principles and reasonably exercised his discretion in finding the statement was spontaneous and made when the accused was first confronted with an accusation of a crime.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought costs of $800, primarily for disbursements.

The Court of Appeal found the claim reasonable and ordered the appellant to pay $800 in costs to the respondent.

The appellant was arbitrarily detained by a police officer during a pro-active policing encounter.

During the encounter, a third party intervened, causing the appellant to act nervously and 'blade' his body.

The officer conducted a warrantless pat-down search for safety reasons, discovering a firearm.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the search was unlawful and the firearm should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the initial detention was unlawful, exigent circumstances justified the safety search, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence under s. 24(2).

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order setting child support, permitting the respondent to move with the children, and awarding trial costs.

The appellant argued the motion judge improperly seized herself of the case and was functus officio based on the Supreme Court's decision in Doucet-Boudreau.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that active case management is permitted under the Family Law Rules and inherent jurisdiction, and that the functus officio doctrine does not prevent a judge from hearing motions to change in family cases.

The trial costs award was also upheld.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $54,456.00, arguing that the trial tactics of defence counsel warranted such an award.

The Court of Appeal found no basis in the conduct of the appeal for substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $33,000 all-inclusive, payable to the appellants.

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

The court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

The respondents moved to quash the appellant's appeal from an order staying his action until he paid outstanding costs awards.

The Court of Appeal held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, because it did not finally determine any substantive matter in the litigation and left it open for the appellant to pursue the action upon paying the costs.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed as it must be brought before the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their counter-claim and awarding $32,000 in costs against them.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellants were denied procedural fairness because the respondent's notice of motion did not seek dismissal of the counter-claim, and the respondent's counsel had explicitly advised the motion judge that such relief was not sought.

The dismissal of the counter-claim was set aside due to this lack of fair notice.

However, the court declined to stay enforcement of the judgment pending the counter-claim's disposition because the lease waived any right to set-off.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike her claim for negligent investigation on the basis that it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued that the negligent investigation claim was interconnected with her breach of privacy claim, which the motion judge had allowed to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two claims protect different legal interests and are distinct.

The motion judge's costs award was also upheld.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant bank's appeal from an order granting leave to amend a statement of claim.

The respondents argued the order was interlocutory, meaning the appeal should lie to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the order permitting the amendment did not deprive the appellant of a substantive defence but simply allowed the matter to proceed to trial.

The appeal was quashed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention in a medium secure unit rather than a minimum secure unit.

The Board relied on the appellant's recent alcohol use, antisocial activities, and elopement risk.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and reflected the least onerous and least restrictive alternative, given the appellant's history of violence when intoxicated and his treating psychiatrist's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order awarding damages for wrongful dismissal to a 31-year employee.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by using a 'bridging-to-retirement' approach to calculate the notice period and by failing to deduct mitigation income.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's alternative finding of a 22-month notice period, as well as the awards for loss of pension benefits and a contractual retirement allowance.

The appeal was allowed in part to deduct mitigation income and adjust the notice period calculation, and the cross-appeal was allowed to increase the notice period to 22 months and remit the costs issue.

Following a successful appeal, the court received submissions regarding the costs of the proceedings below before the Registrar in Bankruptcy and the Superior Court.

The parties had previously agreed to fix those costs at $20,000 when the respondent was successful.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to depart from the agreed amount or to deny the successful appellant its costs, ordering the respondent to pay $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.