John I. Laskin

The appellant appealed his conviction for spousal sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in his credibility findings and seeking to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the grounds relating to the trial judge's reasons but allowed the appeal based on fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence included post-conviction allegations made by the complainant and undisclosed police reports that supported the defence theory that the complainant fabricated the allegations to gain sole custody of their children.

The Court found the undisclosed evidence met the Stinchcombe threshold and impaired the appellant's right to make full answer and defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence affecting credibility findings regarding a key witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions that the witness had no motive to lie and that independent evidence confirmed his testimony were reasonably open to her.

The court also upheld the finding that the appellant lied about not knowing the witness.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in his final instructions on reasonable doubt and that the jury selection process was compromised by late disclosure of an annotated juror list by the Crown.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge's short-form instructions on reasonable doubt were problematic, the charge as a whole did not leave the jury under any misapprehension of the standard of proof.

The Court also held that the jury vetting process did not cause a miscarriage of justice, as defence counsel was provided with the same information and chose not to use it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that was more restrictive of his liberty than previous orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding a solid evidentiary basis for the disposition and noting the Board's intention to maintain oversight while allowing for the possibility of an earlier hearing if progress was made.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim on a Rule 21 motion, arguing the motion judge failed to consider whether the limitation period was tolled under s. 7 of the Limitations Act due to her mental and psychological condition.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that based on the statement of claim, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was statute-barred.

The order of the motion judge was set aside and the defendant's Rule 21 motion was dismissed.

The appellant challenged child sexual offence convictions and an indeterminate sentence imposed following a dangerous offender designation.

The court held that one conviction had to be set aside because the trial judge misapprehended a child complainant’s videotaped statement on the central issue of who issued the alleged invitation to sexual touching, requiring a new trial on that count.

The remaining convictions were upheld, despite an error in using one complainant’s evidence as corroborative similar fact evidence, because the verdict on those counts would inevitably have been the same.

On sentence, the court found an error in overstating the facts underlying one prior sexual assault conviction, but held that neither that error nor the set-aside predicate conviction created any reasonable possibility of a different result on the dangerous offender issue.

The appellant appealed his convictions for illegal possession of handguns and breach of recognizance, arguing that the search warrant executed at his residence violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was based on an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip and was executed in the middle of the night.

The Court of Appeal held that the police had sufficiently corroborated the anonymous tip, including the appellant's criminal record and biographical details, to justify the warrant.

The Court also found the nighttime search reasonable given the risk to public safety and the presence of other occupants in the home.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants, former employees of CMHC, sought to certify class proceedings claiming that CMHC breached its duties by failing to partially terminate its pension plan and distribute the surplus to them after a workforce downsizing.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused to certify the common issues, finding no viable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the court lacks jurisdiction to order an employer to partially terminate a pension plan or to award damages premised on a partial termination.

The court also upheld the refusal to certify a misrepresentation claim and the denial of costs out of the pension fund.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to add a business and an individual as parties to her matrimonial litigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the proposed parties were not necessary and proper because the appellant only sought a monetary equalization payment, not an interest in the business.

The appellant appealed his convictions for threatening to cause the death of a fellow inmate and his parents if the inmate testified against him in an unrelated prosecution.

The appellant argued the trial judge shifted the burden of proof, improperly used the absence of motive to lie to bolster the Crown witness's credibility, and unfairly intervened during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W. (D.) framework, correctly considered motive in assessing credibility, and intervened within permissible limits to control the proceedings.

The appellants abandoned their appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned without costs.

The appellants failed to appear for the hearing of their appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge, and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $10,000.

The appellant appealed from his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the sentence was within the fit range given the trial judge's finding of a pattern of ongoing misconduct.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge to care for his parents, while amicus curiae argued for a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety and had breached the terms of his previous conditional discharge.

The court upheld the Board's conclusion that a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's approval of a sale by a court-appointed receiver, alleging judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the serious allegations of bias.

Furthermore, the court noted the appeal was moot as the properties had already been sold and the proceeds distributed to the major creditor.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a gas contract dispute, arguing errors in the limitation period, mitigation, contract renewal, and costs.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the limitation period should not run due to fraudulent concealment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal on the substantive issues, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of the limitation period, mitigation, or the validity of the renewal contract.

However, the court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the trial costs award to partial indemnity.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as the issue of fraudulent concealment was not raised at trial.

The appellant appealed orders granting possession of a property to a company controlled by the respondent and refusing to set aside the possession order.

The appellant had signed an agreement to make monthly payments for occupancy but defaulted, making no payments since October 2007.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had independent legal advice, took the benefit of the agreement without honouring his obligations, and that his claims of duress and procedural irregularities were unfounded.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondent.