John Laskin

The appellant, a convicted drug dealer, appealed a full forfeiture order of his residential property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The property was heavily fortified and used for commercial cocaine distribution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the property was a fortified drug property and that full forfeiture was not disproportionate given the nature of the offences, the appellant's extensive criminal record, and his ties to organized crime.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's contempt findings and the associated costs award of $40,000 on a full indemnity scale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt findings, noting they were supported by the evidentiary record and adverse credibility findings.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding costs, reducing the $40,000 award to $25,000, as the original amount exceeded the respondent's claimed costs and was disproportionate to the appellant's costs.

Other costs rulings were confirmed.

The respondent, a 16-year-old driver, drove through a stop sign at 80 km/h on an unfamiliar rural road, lost control on a curve, and crashed into a concrete bridge.

He sued the municipality for non-repair, arguing it should have posted a warning sign for the curve.

The trial judge found the municipality 50% liable, holding that ordinary rural drivers do not always stop at stop signs and the curve was a hidden hazard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal and dismissed the action, holding that a municipality's statutory duty of repair is limited to ensuring roads are safe for ordinary drivers exercising reasonable care.

The municipality has no duty to keep roads safe for negligent drivers who ignore stop signs.

The applicant applied for bail pending his appeal of an order committing him for extradition to the United States on charges relating to child pornography and child luring.

The court found that the applicant was not a flight risk and that the public interest alone did not justify his continued detention.

However, the application for bail was dismissed because the applicant failed to raise an arguable ground of appeal from his committal order.

The court found the evidence was sufficient for committal and that subscriber information obtained without a warrant would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision and sought leave to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, noting it did not meet the test and was not needed to argue the appeal.

On the main appeal, the appellants argued that summary judgment was premature due to missing evidence.

The Court rejected this, finding the appellants failed to take steps to compel production and did not put their best foot forward.

The motion judge correctly applied the tests for summary judgment.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed, with costs of the appeal fixed at $85,000.

The appellant appealed a costs award following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge had added notional pre-judgment interest to the jury's general damages award before applying the statutory deductible, which resulted in the plaintiff beating the defendant's offer to settle and triggering the costs consequences of Rule 49.10.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that notional pre-judgment interest should be added to the general damages award for the purpose of determining whether a judgment is more favourable than an offer to settle.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's holistic consideration of the offers to settle under Rule 49.13.

The appellant appealed his four-year penitentiary sentence for voyeurism, making child pornography, and internet luring involving two teenage victims.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by over-emphasizing consecutive sentences and unreasonably assessing aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the global sentence fit given the serious aggravating features, including breach of trust, careful planning, grooming, and exploitation of a victim's poverty.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts related to child prostitution and his sentence of four and a half years.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment to call a witness and that the trial judge's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion regarding the adjournment and conducted the trial impartially.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly applied the principle of totality and the Tang factors, resulting in a fit sentence.

The respondent moved to vary a judgment of the Court of Appeal awarding $8,000 in costs to the appellant following a successful appeal to set aside an administrative dismissal.

The respondent argued that costs should not follow the event because it was not at fault for the delay, and that it had not agreed to the $8,000 quantum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, noting that the digital recording confirmed the respondent's counsel had agreed to the quantum, and found no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The parties agreed to the costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed amount of $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant was convicted of multiple fraud-related offences arising from a credit and debit card scheme.

At trial, the Crown relied heavily on the testimony of four former co-accused who had previously pled guilty based on agreed statements of fact implicating the appellant.

When these witnesses recanted their statements at trial, the trial judge admitted their prior statements for the truth of their contents under the K.G.B. framework.

The appellant appealed, arguing the statements should not have been admitted and that the trial judge's Vetrovec warning was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal held that while the statements met the test for threshold reliability, the Vetrovec warning failed to adequately explain to the jury the witnesses' strong motives to lie in their prior statements to obtain lenient sentences.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants moved to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed their motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing their appeal for delay.

The panel admitted fresh evidence showing that the delay was due to the inadvertence of former counsel, who failed to provide the full explanation for the delay or evidence of the appellants' intention to pursue the appeal.

Finding that the appeal raised serious issues regarding the scope of a receiver's authority, the court set aside the dismissal orders, extended the time to perfect the appeal, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The Crown appealed an acquittal, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give effect to the 'on or about' language in the indictment and by refusing to amend the indictment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that an expansive interpretation of the date would be unfair given the alibi defence presented, and that the Crown's request to amend the indictment during closing submissions was too late and would prejudice the accused.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her motor vehicle accident claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment because the appellant failed to plead facts relevant to discoverability in her statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a limitations defence must be pleaded in a statement of defence, and discoverability should be addressed in a reply, not anticipated in the statement of claim.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the claim was discovered and granted the appellant leave to deliver a reply.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing his payment obligations under a Share Purchase Agreement.

He argued the business was illegal and that the agreements contemplated an ongoing supply of movies, raising credibility issues requiring a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant provided only bald statements without supporting evidence, and upheld the motion judge's decision.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident when the pickup truck he was a passenger in went through a red light and was struck by a transport truck going through a green light.

The jury found the driver of the pickup 95% liable and the driver of the transport truck 5% liable.

The appellants (the transport truck driver and owners) appealed, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misdirected the jury on causation, and there was improper cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence supported the jury's conclusion that a reasonably prudent driver should have been aware of the hazard, the jury charge was not in error when read as a whole, and the improper cross-examination was not serious enough to undermine trial fairness.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering the release of a statutory holdback to the respondent subcontractor.

The appellants argued the respondent failed to provide required close-out documentation, including as-built drawings and an engineering certificate, and that the matter should have proceeded to trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly applied the summary judgment standard and correctly concluded the required documents had been provided.

The court ordered the immediate payout of the holdback funds and dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for an unprovoked and brutal aggravated assault, arguing it was manifestly unfit and failed to give proper effect to denunciation and deterrence.

The sentencing judge had effectively imposed a low penitentiary sentence after giving credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing the principle of rehabilitation to give the respondent one last chance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion regarding the respondent's rehabilitative prospects and seeing no basis for appellate intervention.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment regarding a 1994 promissory note, arguing the trial judge failed to consider a 1983 agreement, a cancellation clause, the appropriate interest rate, and the principle of proportionality in costs.

The plaintiff cross-appealed on interest and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the note was clear on its face, the cancellation clause was inapplicable due to prior default, and the trial judge made no reversible error in exercising discretion over interest and costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, arguing the trial judge unfairly commented on his evidence and failed to relate the evidence to the elements of the offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's caution regarding the appellant's after-the-fact theory was fair and the review of the evidence was sufficient.

The Court also noted the lack of objection at trial and the overwhelming case against the appellant.