John I. Laskin

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to add a party as a defendant in an action concerning the ownership of a ring and GICs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, noting that all parties had previously treated the proposed defendant as a party regarding the ring, and the motion to add her regarding the GICs was brought within the two-year limitation period after the transfer of ownership was discovered.

The order was set aside and the party was added as a defendant.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his motion to set aside a consent order he had previously signed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's thorough reasons and dismissed the appeal.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000, to be paid out of funds held in court along with previous costs awards.

The appellant sought to review and set aside an order requiring him to post $40,000 as security for costs to proceed with his appeal.

The motion judge had ordered security under rule 61.06(1)(a) on the basis that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and the appellant lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal set aside the order, finding that the respondent failed to meet the onus of demonstrating the appellant had insufficient assets, as the evidence relied upon related to past cash flow issues rather than current asset ownership.

A dissenting judge would have upheld the order.

The Crown appealed a decision staying the charge against the respondent due to unreasonable delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while it did not entirely agree with the trial judge's allocation of time, the overall finding of unreasonable delay was sustainable.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondents specific performance of an agreement to sever and sell a parcel of land for a new Mazda dealership.

The appellants argued the agreement lacked consideration, was too uncertain to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, and that specific performance could not be ordered on a summary basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding mutual promises constituted consideration, the agreement's terms were clear, and specific performance was available and appropriate on summary judgment.

The appellant appealed two orders transferring title of church property to the respondent and finding her in contempt for failing to deliver up church property.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the appellant had purged her contempt by returning keys, ceasing attendance, and asserting she possessed no further documents.

The warrant of committal was set aside, but the appeals were otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions.

The Crown acknowledged that fresh evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated the appellant did not commit the crimes.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, set aside the convictions, and entered acquittals.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation based on two letters.

Upon discovering the letters had not been published, the plaintiffs brought a motion to dismiss their own action and sought costs against the defendants.

The motion judge treated the motion as a discontinuance and awarded costs to the defendants under Rule 23.05.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that a plaintiff cannot move to dismiss its own action to avoid the presumptive costs consequences of discontinuance.

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

The appellants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The costs were fixed at $45,000 for one group of appellants, $20,000 for another group, and $60,000 for a single appellant, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The aboriginal appellant appealed his sentence of 30 months' imprisonment for breaching the alcohol abstention condition of his long-term supervision order.

The appellant argued the sentence was unfit, the judge misapprehended evidence, denied enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, and failed to adequately consider his aboriginal status.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that protection of the public was paramount given the appellant's history of violent offences while intoxicated, and that his aboriginal status did not warrant a reduction in this specific context.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, use of a firearm, and aggravated assault, as well as his 11-year sentence.

He argued that the trial judge erred in admitting his non-videotaped statements to police and photo array identification evidence that did not meet the Sophonow requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the weight of the evidence and affirmed that police should record interviews from the outset.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit given the gratuitous shooting and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The appellant sought to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice that required evidence to be led regarding a limitations defence at trial.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the matter was clearly interlocutory.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to refuse a motion for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an appeal book endorsement awarding costs to the respondent.

The respondent was awarded costs in the amount of $3,500, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of a commercial lease clause concerning the allocation of property taxes.

The lease gave the respondent discretion to use working papers if deemed sufficient.

The application judge found the respondent's decision not to use the working papers was reasonable and consistent with the lease.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that working papers are not intended to apply to individual premises and their unreliability is a legitimate consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its claim for a commission and unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found there was no agreement to pay the appellant in the absence of a completed transaction, and the appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for offences involving a breach of trust against a vulnerable young person.

He argued the trial judge treated the evidence unevenly and failed to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed credibility and that MSN chat messages were highly inculpatory.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court upholding the 22-month sentence for an increasingly intrusive breach of trust by a step-father over an extended period.

The Crown appealed a 60-day intermittent sentence and 3-year driving prohibition imposed on the respondent for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The respondent had struck the victim while she was changing a tire, resulting in the amputation of her leg.

The Court of Appeal agreed the sentence was demonstrably unfit and that a non-intermittent custodial sentence was warranted.

However, because the respondent had already served the sentence and had significant personal and health issues, the court declined to re-incarcerate him.

The court allowed the appeal in part by increasing the driving prohibition from three to five years.

The appellant appealed her conviction for the second-degree murder of her partner's two-year-old child.

She argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on expert pathological evidence regarding blunt force trauma and on her post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge fairly and accurately dealt with the expert evidence and properly instructed the jury that if they accepted the appellant's innocent explanation for her post-offence lies, that conduct could not be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, as well as his 30-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in her credibility findings and failed to consider a conditional sentence on compassionate grounds due to his poor health.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.D. principles and conducted a fair assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's medical needs could be adequately managed in custody.