John I. Laskin

The appellant appealed from an order and judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had jurisdiction over the charges and that there was no basis for certiorari.

The court also dismissed the application for habeas corpus, finding it was an attempt to review the denial of bail, for which there was no basis to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed a 20-year weapons prohibition order.

With the consent of the Crown, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted the legal maximum two-year weapons prohibition order.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant husband was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, rendering him unable to continue providing caregiving services to his wife, who suffered from a pre-existing medical condition.

The husband elected to receive income replacement benefits rather than caregiver benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The wife brought a derivative claim under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for the cost of hiring a substitute caregiver.

The Court of Appeal held that the substitute caregiver expenses were not 'health care' expenses under the Insurance Act, meaning the defendants were not protected from liability.

Furthermore, the court held that the wife's claim was her own statutory cause of action and was not barred by her husband's election of benefits.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for the rape of a 15-year-old girl.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to order production of the complainant's psychiatric records under s. 278.5 of the Criminal Code and in failing to set out the theory of the defence to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the likely relevance test for the records was not met and the defence theory was speculative.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the serious nature of the offence required a penitentiary term despite the appellant's health and immigration consequences.

The appellant appealed his convictions for uttering a death threat against a Crown Attorney and causing a disturbance, as well as his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the witnesses consistently described a threat to kill, the trial judge correctly inferred the requisite mens rea, and the appellant's yelling in court constituted a disturbance.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit despite being at the high end of the range.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce appealed a trial judgment setting aside postponement agreements that had elevated its mortgage to first priority over Maple Valley Acres Limited's mortgages.

The trial judge found the agreements were induced by a misrepresentation made by a sub-agent acting within the scope of his authority for the Bank.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, confirming the rescission of the agreements and the restoration of mortgage priorities based on misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The Court also upheld a Sanderson costs order against the Bank but allowed a cross-appeal by third-party solicitors who had been improperly denied their costs at trial.

The Crown appealed an acquittal entered by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by relying on a previous incident of consensual sex, which violated s. 276 of the Criminal Code.

The case was not fought on the issue of consent, as the respondent's position was that the alleged act of anal intercourse did not occur.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that all essential terms of the 'clean break' scenario were settled by June 16, 2003.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed a ruling by Justice Archie G. Campbell.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court that the error in question was within jurisdiction and therefore not subject to certiorari.

The Liquidator of the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada appealed a motions judge's refusal to approve a $495,495 premium on the legal fees of its counsel, WeirFoulds LLP.

The law firm had acted on a contingency-like basis when the estate became insolvent, successfully recovering $19 million for the estate to compensate victims of child abuse.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred by failing to consider the significant financial risk assumed by the law firm, the Liquidator's business decision to approve the premium, and the non-opposition of the victims' representative counsel.

The premium was deemed reasonable and approved in full.

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

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the orders under appeal were interlocutory as they did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondents, without prejudice to the appellants' right to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The respondent employee resigned mid-year and successfully sued for a pro rata share of his non-discretionary profit-sharing bonus.

The appellant employer appealed, arguing that the bonus was calculated at year-end and no pro rata share should be implied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the profit-sharing plan was an integral, non-discretionary part of the compensation package and that there was no clear practice denying the bonus upon mid-year departure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal in the context of Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings involving Air Canada.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, Air Canada, against the appellant, Global Payments Canada Inc., on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $46,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The moving party sought a review of an order by a single judge of the Court of Appeal dismissing a motion to extend the time for appealing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge was correct and that the relief sought could and should have been raised during previous appeals to the court, which had already been dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the responding parties' appeal, arguing that the appeal did not fall within sections 193(a) to (d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and therefore required leave.

The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the appeal fell within section 193(c) because the order appealed from would declare the moving party a creditor and allow it to prove a claim in excess of $3 million, meaning the property involved exceeded $10,000.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed his sentence for firearms offences and possession of a candlestick holder.

The Court of Appeal found the one-year sentence for the firearms offences was within an acceptable range, but the trial judge erred by imposing a consecutive ten-month sentence for possession of the candlestick holder, which merited only one month.

Taking into account pre-trial custody on a two-for-one basis, the Court varied the total sentence to time served.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents for breach of fiduciary duty related to mortgage transactions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to present material facts showing a breach of duty or causation of damages.

The Court noted the appellants defaulted on three mortgages due to lack of financial means, and there were no genuine credibility issues requiring a trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, and possession of a restricted weapon.

She appealed her convictions, arguing that the evidence seized from her residence under a general warrant violated her section 8 Charter rights and should have been excluded under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal found that the general warrant was invalid because the police could have obtained a conventional warrant, rendering the search warrantless and a breach of section 8.

However, the Court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), concluding that the police acted in good faith and the exclusion of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into greater disrepute than its admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice directing the sale of a property.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion in ordering the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.