John I. Laskin

The appellant appealed an order regarding her compliance with an agreement of purchase and sale.

She argued that providing a cheque for the deposit on September 16, 2006, established complete compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the cheque was negotiable when provided, and upholding the summary trial judge's conclusion.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought access to and copies of exhibits from a preliminary inquiry involving four correctional officers charged in the death of Ashley Smith.

The charges were dropped, and the exhibits were transferred for a coroner's inquest.

The application judge granted CBC access but restricted copying to portions of the video played in open court and prohibited copying the footage of Smith's death.

The Court of Appeal allowed CBC's appeal, holding that the Dagenais/Mentuck test applies to media requests for exhibits and that the open court principle includes the right to copy exhibits in full, absent convincing evidence of a serious risk to the administration of justice or other protected interests.

The appellants, owners of a professional baseball team, sued the Can-Am League, its principals, and the City of Ottawa in Ontario after the League terminated their membership and drew down a letter of credit.

The agreements between the parties contained choice of forum and arbitration clauses designating North Carolina.

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellants argued the defendants attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence, and that fundamental breach precluded reliance on the clauses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to show strong cause to displace the choice of forum clause, and that attornment does not prevent a court from declining to exercise its jurisdiction.

The young person appealed her sentence of four months closed custody and two months open custody for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Court of Appeal found the original sentence was fit at the time it was imposed.

However, based on remarkable fresh evidence demonstrating the young person's strict compliance with restrictions, excellent educational progress, and strong family support over the past two years, the court allowed the appeal to permit her to continue her rehabilitation.

The appellant mother appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her request to increase spousal support after her child support was reduced.

The reduction occurred because the youngest child changed her primary residence to live with the respondent father, and the mother was paying no child support for that child.

The appellant also challenged the motion judge's allowance of the respondent's business expenses for calculating child support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's discretionary decisions reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while it might have granted relief for the failure to move promptly, the appellant's claims were merely bald conclusory allegations and raised no arguable defence on the merits.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $10,000, and the writ of possession and eviction order were stayed for 30 days.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice that had dismissed an appeal from a Justice of the Peace.

Based on the reasons set out in the joint factum, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered acquittals on the two charges.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his summary conviction on two grounds related to his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

He argued that s. 10(b) ensures a minimum level of competency from duty counsel and that police should have facilitated a further call.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, noting that the Supreme Court of Canada has held police have no obligation to monitor the quality of legal advice, and duty counsel is not a state actor.

The second ground was dismissed due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal and appealed his sentence after having already served the custodial portion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal, finding that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was fit.

The appellants were charged with the attempted murder of a drug dealer.

After a jury trial, one appellant was convicted of attempted murder, while the other was convicted of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault.

The appellant convicted of attempted murder appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defence's position regarding the mens rea for attempted murder.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the key evidence supporting the appellant's position that he did not intend to kill the victim.

The conviction for attempted murder was set aside and substituted with a conviction for aggravated assault, with a reduced sentence.

The other appellant's appeal regarding the jury instructions on party liability was dismissed.

The appellants, representing federal public servants, RCMP, and Canadian Forces personnel, appealed the dismissal of their actions seeking the return of over $28 billion to their pension plans.

The Government had amortized and later withdrawn actuarial surpluses from the Superannuation Accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superannuation Accounts were merely legislated ledgers containing no actual assets, as employee contributions were deposited into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Court held that the Government did not owe a fiduciary duty to the plan members regarding the surplus, nor was it unjustly enriched.

Furthermore, the 2000 amendments to the governing statutes clearly authorized the Government to withdraw the actuarial surplus.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to decline jurisdiction and permanently stay its application against the respondent arbitration centre.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion based on forum non conveniens, as the underlying arbitration was rooted in Quebec.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to set aside additional relief granted by the motion judge that was neither requested by the respondent nor consistent with declining jurisdiction.

The moving parties brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal and for the costs awarded on a summary judgment motion.

The moving parties relied on the residual 'other good reason' category under rule 61.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no compelling reason to order security for the costs of the appeal or to require an advance payment of the summary judgment costs award, which was automatically stayed by the appeal.

The moving party tenant sought a stay pending appeal of an order dismissing its application for relief from forfeiture under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

The landlord had terminated the lease based on a redevelopment clause.

The court held that a stay of a dismissal order was of no benefit and treated the motion as a request for an interim injunction under s. 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was dismissed because the appeal lacked merit and the balance of convenience favoured the landlord, who needed the premises to begin pre-sales for a redevelopment project.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a statement he made to police during the execution of a search warrant.

The appellant, who was handcuffed, cold, and shivering after stun grenades were deployed, was asked by police where his coat was, leading to the discovery of a firearm.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge made three errors in assessing voluntariness: erroneously finding a partial caution was given, failing to consider the cold as an inducement, and misapprehending evidence about whether the appellant was offered other jackets.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed their conviction and sentence.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge's instruction on corroboration was an error requiring a new trial, in light of the defence's closing argument.

Based on this concession, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was arrested for causing a disturbance and subsequently filed a complaint under the Police Services Act against the arresting officers.

A hearing officer dismissed the complaint, finding the arrest lawful and no unnecessary force used.

The appellant then brought a civil action against the officers and the Police Services Board for unlawful arrest, unnecessary use of force, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants successfully moved to strike these claims on the ground of issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirements for issue estoppel were met and that applying it would not be unfair or unjust.

The appellant filed a complaint under the Police Services Act against two police officers, alleging unlawful arrest and excessive force.

The hearing officer dismissed the complaint, finding the arrest lawful and no excessive force used.

The appellant then brought a civil action against the officers for unlawful arrest, excessive force, arbitrary detention, and malicious prosecution.

The defendants successfully moved to strike these claims based on issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the elements of issue estoppel were met and there was no reason to exercise discretion to refuse its application.

The appellants appealed an order granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjournment was an interlocutory order and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction.

Costs of $700 were awarded to the respondent, reduced due to the late filing of materials.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration interpreting provisions of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 regarding the registration status of a broker or salesperson no longer employed by a brokerage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge that there was no live dispute or lis between the parties, as the specific broker's registration had been revoked.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.