John I. Laskin

The appellant appealed a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's reasons justified the disposition and were supported by medical evidence.

The Court noted that a conditional discharge could be possible in the future if the appellant accepts the proposed hospital treatment.

The appellant appealed a 22-month sentence for offences including assault, death threats, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider the totality principle when imposing consecutive sentences.

Given the offender's youth, the court granted leave to appeal and reduced the total sentence to 18 months, resulting in 13 months going forward after accounting for 5 months of pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at the Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The appellant argued the disposition was unreasonable, that his explanations for refusing medication were ignored, and that the Board lost jurisdiction by granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disposition reasonable given the appellant's significant risk, and holding that any potential loss of jurisdiction was cured by section 672.53 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant sought leave to appeal under s. 839 of the Criminal Code from a summary conviction appeal judge's decision overturning a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding that the 10 months of institutional delay was within the Morin guidelines for a two-day impaired driving trial and did not warrant granting leave.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his arrest at the door of his apartment was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's factual findings, including marihuana smoke, suspicious conduct, and drug paraphernalia visible from the door, provided ample grounds for a lawful arrest.

As the arrest was lawful, there was no breach of section 9 of the Charter, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant chose not to attend the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The Children's Lawyer and other appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to appoint an independent trustee for an inter vivos spousal trust.

The appellants alleged that the respondents, who were directors of the corporation wholly owned by the trust, committed a breach of trust by declaring dividends in excess of net income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents' actions as directors were governed by the Business Corporations Act, not the trust agreement, and did not constitute a breach of trust.

The court also dismissed an application to admit fresh evidence and upheld the application judge's order that costs be paid out of the estate.

Following an appeal where the appellant succeeded in reducing the amount payable but failed to obtain a new trial or overturn the setting aside of a domestic contract, the court determined costs.

The respondent was deemed largely successful and awarded $25,000 in appeal costs.

The issue of trial costs, originally awarded on a substantial indemnity scale, was remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration in light of the appeal outcome.

The moving party, a mental health centre, brought a motion to suspend a placement decision of the Ontario Review Board pending appeal.

The respondent, a dual status offender, was ordered by the Board to be transferred from a federal penitentiary to the mental health centre.

The moving party argued that the transfer posed a safety risk and that the Board lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the test for suspending a placement decision is whether the moving party has shown a compelling reason to doubt the reasonableness of the Board's decision concerning the mental condition of the accused.

The moving party failed to meet this heavy burden.

The appellant's second degree murder conviction was previously set aside by the Court of Appeal and a manslaughter conviction was substituted.

The Court determined the appropriate sentence for the substituted manslaughter conviction.

Considering the appellant's level of culpability as a non-physical participant in the fatal stabbing, his youth, and the time he had already served in custody, the Court imposed a sentence of one day of imprisonment in addition to time served, plus one year of probation.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his detention.

It was uncontested that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety, precluding an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition was fully supported by the evidence and free of legal error.

Fresh evidence indicated the appellant was incapable of consenting to treatment, making a conditional discharge unavailable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, relying on an alibi.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable despite the alibi evidence.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by mischaracterizing the appellant's role and failing to give weight to his rehabilitation, despite a positive presentence report.

Considering all circumstances, including fresh evidence, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to 18 months, recommending consideration for the temporary absence program.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by a judge and jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a properly instructed jury could reasonably conclude that the only reasonable inference from the cumulative effect of the evidence was the appellant's guilt.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Mental Health Legal Committee brought motions for leave to intervene as friends of the court in an upcoming appeal concerning the constitutionality of the involuntary detention provisions of the Mental Health Act.

The appellant supported the motions, while the respondent Crown and mental health facility opposed them, arguing the proposed interventions would be duplicative or raise new issues.

The Court of Appeal granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners had special expertise, would make useful contributions without duplicating the appellant's arguments, and that the new legal arguments raised did not require fresh evidence or cause prejudice to the respondents.

The appellants were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder following a home invasion and robbery of a drug dealer, during which two victims were unlawfully confined and shot to death.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding the defence of alibi, a third-party suspect, the correction of defence counsel's closing address, the failure to give timely notice of an alibi witness, and the elements of accessorial liability for constructive first-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions.

The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to leave constructive first-degree murder to the jury for the non-shooter as an aider and abettor, and concluded that the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $231,963 for loans advanced.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by relying on evidence of settlement discussions held before a mediator in India, claiming settlement privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had waived any potential settlement privilege by failing to pursue their objection, leading their own evidence about the discussions, and relying on that evidence in closing submissions.

The trial judge's finding of personal liability was upheld.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury charge by using the word 'some' regarding s. 21(2) and the phrase 'ought to have known' regarding possession under s. 4(3).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the first phrase would not have misled the jury given the instructions on reasonable doubt.

While acknowledging the second phrase was an error, the Court applied the curative proviso because the photographic evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

She argued the judgment was signed irregularly before the 20-day service period elapsed and that she had a defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the judgment was signed irregularly, the appellant suffered no prejudice, and relief against the irregularity was granted under Rule 2.01.

Furthermore, the appellant had no defence on the merits as it was undisputed she received $600,000 from the sale of her property.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered after the trial judge excluded evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave thoughtful reasons for excluding the evidence and the Crown's appeal did not raise a question of law alone.