John I. Laskin

The appellant appealed a total sentence of two years and three months.

She argued the sentence was ambiguous and improperly disparate compared to her co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ambiguity and noting that the disparity was justified because the appellant was convicted of additional serious offences, including breaching court orders while on bail.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for kidnapping.

He argued that proceeding with the charge in Ontario after a related charge was dismissed in Montreal was an abuse of process, that the trial judge erred in excluding evidence of the complainant's subsequent work as a prostitute, and that the Vetrovec warning was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no abuse of process, that the excluded evidence had no probative value, and that the Vetrovec warning was satisfactory.

The sentence was also found to be fit.

The appellants, including the builder and contractors, appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent condominium corporation for structural deficiencies in a block back-up wall.

The appellants argued the action was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and the six-year limitation period, and challenged the findings of breach of warranty and negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the structural defects could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and that the warranty clause, interpreted contra proferentem, did not limit claims to one year.

The damages assessment was also upheld.

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal clarified its previous order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The Court confirmed that the trial of the issue was ordered only on Part 4 of section 444.1(1) of the Municipal Act, as the offer to lease entered into before June 11, 1998, satisfied Part 1 of the section.

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal addressed the costs of the appellant's unsuccessful stay motion, which had been reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The court awarded the respondent costs of the motion fixed at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Crown appealed an order quashing the respondent's committal for trial on charges related to a street racing accident.

The application judge had quashed the committal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to prove the respondent was the driver of the second car.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in law by weighing the evidence against the committal standard rather than determining if there was any evidentiary basis upon which the committing justice could form the opinion that the evidence justified a committal.

The order committing the respondent for trial was restored.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred in charging the jury on party liability and that the Crown unfairly cross-examined him.

The Court of Appeal held that while the instruction on party liability may have been an error, it occasioned no substantial wrong because the jury still had to find the appellant made an offer to sell.

The court also found the cross-examination regarding police fabrication and breach of bail conditions was proper in context and relevant to credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt, the absence of evidence, and the W.D. framework.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions adequately conveyed the required legal principles, including that a state of doubt regarding the accused's testimony requires an acquittal, and that the jury must consider all evidence.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed after the trial judge refused to grant a third adjournment.

The plaintiff, who was unrepresented after his lawyer was removed from the record, failed to retain new counsel in time for the peremptory trial date and failed to pay the costs thrown away from a previous adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's refusal was justified given the plaintiff's lack of diligence in retaining counsel and his failure to comply with the court's costs order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The appellant had admitted his involvement in the robbery to a witness with a criminal record, but the balance of the evidence confirmed the admission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was in the best position to assess credibility and the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that based on the trial judge's treatment of the complainant's credibility on other charges resulting in acquittals, the confirmatory evidence needed to implicate the appellant in the crime alleged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and noting the appellant's concession that confirmatory evidence generally does not have to implicate the accused in the criminal aspect of the offences charged.

The appellant was convicted of assault with a weapon after striking the complainant in the face with a broken beer bottle outside a bar.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the conviction appeal but varied the sentence.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's threats and the appellant's state of mind, and misstated the burden of proof under the W. (D.) test.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a previous order that stayed and dismissed his action as frivolous and vexatious.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request to introduce fresh evidence, finding it irrelevant to the tests for setting aside an order.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellant failed to attend the original motion for his own reasons and had not established grounds such as mistake, fraud, or newly discovered facts to justify setting aside the order.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property under $5,000 after taking stickers from his employer.

On appeal, he argued his plea was equivocal because his trial counsel submitted during sentencing that he honestly believed he was entitled to take the stickers due to common employee practice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the plea was not equivocal, the facts supported the plea, and the explanation offered in mitigation did not amount to a defence in law.

The appellant father appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of the parties' daughter to the respondent mother.

The father sought joint custody or a new trial, alleging he was denied a fair trial due to being unrepresented, an alleged conflict of interest involving a legal secretary, and procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fair trial arguments and upheld the sole custody order, finding that the parents' high-conflict relationship made joint custody unworkable.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to grant the father increased access to the child.

The appellant was convicted of possession of property obtained by crime relating to stolen motor vehicles.

During the investigation, a police officer searched a briefcase found in a stolen van incident to the arrest of a co-accused.

The appellant claimed ownership of the briefcase, but the officer continued the search, finding incriminating documents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the search as a valid incident to arrest, finding the officer had a duty to discover and preserve evidence.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal in part, setting aside a $20,000 restitution order due to insufficient proof of loss.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple property-related offences, including break and enters.

At trial, there was a joint submission for a three-year sentence, but the trial judge rejected it and imposed a five-year sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the proposed three-year sentence was within the appropriate range, given the appellant's youth, lack of prior lengthy sentences, and efforts to overcome addiction.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to three years by making certain sentences concurrent.

The appellant father appealed an interim order that retroactively increased his child support obligations based on his substantially increased income.

The motions judge had recalculated the support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines without finding a material change in circumstances or a pressing need for the children.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Guidelines do not provide an inherent discretion to retroactively recalculate support based solely on an undisclosed increase in income.

A retroactive increase requires a finding of a change in circumstances, ability to pay, and evidence of the children's need during the relevant period.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a three-year probation order imposed as part of her sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the probation order and its terms to be entirely fit and dismissed the application for leave to appeal as being without merit.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its third party action against a guarantor.

The trial judge found that the guarantee relied upon by the Registrar's Advisory Committee to approve a builder's registration application was forged, and therefore invalid and unenforceable against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.