John I. Laskin

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to fairly put the defence's position to the jury and erred in instructing the jury regarding the complainant's past criminal lifestyle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's charge and recharge adequately addressed the defence theory and any concerns about the complainant's lifestyle.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the sentence fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding sufficient evidence on the record to support a finding of actual knowledge or wilful blindness.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part; the custodial portion was moot as it had been served, but the restitution order was set aside on the Crown's concession.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence.

She abandoned her conviction appeal, which was consequently dismissed.

Despite commending the appellant's sincere efforts at rehabilitation and addressing her drug addiction, the Court of Appeal found the original sentence to be fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.

Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) brought a motion for directions regarding an unpaid costs award of $12,000 from a priority dispute over accident benefits.

MPI was successful in the underlying arbitration and application, but took no part in the subsequent appeal between Allstate and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Court of Appeal ordered Allstate, as the unsuccessful party on the appeal, to pay MPI's $12,000 costs from the lower proceedings, plus $1,000 for the costs of the motion.

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed an order granting the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care equitable set-off.

The Ministry sought to set off $1,000,000 owed by the Crown for occupation rent of a nursing home against $4,413,285.85 owed by the bankrupt owner for over-subsidization.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the test for equitable set-off, as the cross-obligations were directly related and arose from the Ministry's decision to fund the operation directly rather than by subsidy.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action to discharge a 1979 debenture registered against their lands, which they claimed was unenforceable due to expired limitation periods.

The motion judge had found the debenture was not statute-barred because a receiver had been appointed and its validity was determined in a prior fraudulent conveyance action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in her legal conclusions and that the record did not support summary judgment for either party.

The cross-motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that although the trial judge erred in admitting the record of arrest, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of possession.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in finding multiple bail breaches and imposed a sentence inconsistent with her reasons.

The sentence was reduced to 8.5 months, reflecting a 12-month sentence less 3.5 months of pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and firearms offences, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the robbery conviction, finding the verdict was not unreasonable.

However, the Court found the trial judge failed to establish to the criminal standard that the weapon used was a firearm.

Consequently, the firearms convictions were set aside and substituted with convictions for use and possession of an imitation firearm.

The appellant's sentence was reduced from five-and-a-half years to five years.

The appellant appealed a committal order and sought judicial review of a surrender order to the United States.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Minister's surrender order, noting that even if the appellant's affidavit was accepted as fresh evidence, it did not afford a basis to remit the issue of surrender to the Minister.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appeal from the committal order was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant, a condominium unit owner, appealed an order restricting his statutory right to examine condominium records and prohibiting him from coming within 25 feet of the management office.

The application judge had found his unrelenting requests amounted to harassment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the complete elimination of his statutory right of access and the broad injunctive relief too extreme, especially since the conduct did not amount to actionable harassment.

The court set aside the injunctive components but upheld the requirements that requests be made in writing and photocopying charges be paid in advance.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order allowing a judgment creditor to garnish funds from an estate that were directed by the testatrix's will to be used to purchase a non-commutable life annuity for the judgment debtor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, holding that the legacy vested in the judgment debtor upon the testatrix's death and was therefore subject to garnishment.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs order and directed that the costs of the initial motion be paid out of the estate rather than by the appellant.

The appellant appealed his sentence for dangerous driving involving a police chase, arguing the trial judge erred in principle by using a three-year penitentiary term as a starting point.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that a lower penitentiary sentence was called for given the aggravating features of the conduct.

The appellant appealed a 2007 disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

However, a subsequent 2008 disposition was made which the appellant did not appeal, and his concerns regarding the panel's composition were addressed at both hearings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed his sentence for impaired driving causing death and bodily harm.

His blood alcohol readings were over three times the legal limit, and this was his third drinking and driving offence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and upheld the lifetime driving prohibition, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed an eight-year sentence for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred in finding there was no hope for his rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was justified in taking a dim view of the appellant's rehabilitation prospects based on the pre-sentence report and his criminal record, and concluded the sentence was fit.

The plaintiff egg producer sued the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada for negligent investigation after its flock was suspected of salmonella contamination, leading the plaintiff to destroy the flock before final negative test results were received.

The motion judge found that the agencies owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither agency owed a private duty of care to the plaintiff.

The relationship lacked sufficient proximity, and the Health of Animals Act demonstrated a legislative intent to exclude a private law duty through its statutory compensation scheme and immunity clause.

The moving party sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing its appeal for delay.

The underlying action involved a claim against environmental consultants for allegedly overstating PCB contamination, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside the Registrar's order, finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain its delay and, crucially, that the appeal lacked merit because the principal of the moving party admitted on discovery that he knew all material facts to start a claim well before the limitation period expired.

The appellants appealed their eight-year sentences, which were significantly higher than the Crown's recommendations at trial.

The Court of Appeal found the sentences constituted an error in principle given the Crown's recommendations, the appellants' ages, and their prospects for rehabilitation.

The sentences were reduced to six years.

In a subsequent addendum, the Court clarified that the two months of pre-trial custody credit granted by the trial judge applied to the reduced six-year sentences, leaving five years and ten months to be served.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the action was a collateral attack on a previous order and therefore an abuse of process.

The court also found that the aspect of the claim challenging the propriety of a property sale would require re-litigating previous factual findings, and applied the principles of issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the order under appeal was interlocutory and its character was unaffected by the passage of time.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with costs awarded to the respondents.