John I. Laskin

The self-represented appellant appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge should have adjourned the trial on his own initiative so the appellant could confer with counsel, given his head injury and unreasonable positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge conducted a fair trial and repeatedly offered adjournments which the appellant refused.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding equalization, spousal support, and vesting orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's rejection of an alleged debt to the appellant's brother or the imputation of income for spousal support.

The Court upheld the vesting of two condominiums in the respondent as security for the equalization and support owed, and provided directions for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent for unpaid structural consulting services.

The motion judge's endorsement merely stated that there was no genuine issue for trial, without providing any factual findings or legal analysis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's reasons were so deficient that they did not permit meaningful appellate review.

The court declined to decide the summary judgment motion itself due to unresolved factual disputes and directed the parties to seek an expedited hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of defence and counterclaim for failing to produce an affidavit of documents.

They argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction because the order was purportedly made under Rule 76, despite the litigation continuing under the ordinary procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the order did not refer to Rule 76, and even if it had, it would be a mere technical irregularity that did not deprive the motion judge of jurisdiction.

The appellant law firm appealed the dismissal of its action for unpaid legal fees under a contingency fee retainer agreement.

The client had accepted the law firm's repudiation of the agreement and directed the firm to take no further steps.

The Court of Appeal held that by accepting the repudiation and directing the firm to stop work, the client cancelled the services within the meaning of the agreement's termination provision, thereby becoming liable to pay the value of services performed to date.

The appeal was allowed and judgment granted for the law firm.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for minor assaults and detained at a minimum forensic unit.

Despite his ongoing marijuana use, he had no history of aggression while detained.

The Ontario Review Board ordered his transfer to a medium security unit to restrict his access to drugs and help him develop insight.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the transfer unreasonable because it was more restrictive of his liberty and there was no evidence linking his marijuana use to a risk to public safety while detained.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for an accidental death benefit after her son died from a fall from a balcony.

The motion judge used fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) to conclude the appellant could not prove the death was accidental rather than suicide.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the insurer, finding no error in the motion judge's assessment of the evidence.

However, the Court set aside the dismissal against the employer, as the claim against it was based on misrepresentation and it had not participated in the motion.

The appellant, representing Ontario grain farmers, applied under Rule 14.05(3)(d) for a declaration interpreting a regulation that restricted the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

The appellant argued the regulation was unworkable and sought an interpretation that would effectively delay its implementation.

The motion judge struck the application for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the regulation was not ambiguous and the appellant was improperly seeking to rewrite the regulation rather than resolve a genuine interpretive dispute.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's order granting joint custody of their three-year-old son in the form of a parallel parenting arrangement.

She argued that joint custody was inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision reasonable and necessary to preserve the respondent father's relationship with his son, especially given findings that the mother overstated her fear and refused to cooperate.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order, arguing the motion judge erred by granting it despite a viable set-off defence and inconsistently allowing the counterclaim to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge reasonably exercised his discretion.

The appellants had failed to provide evidence of their damages claim after being given a year to do so, leaving only an unsubstantial punitive damages claim.

The Crown appealed a nearly $1 million costs award made against it after its unsuccessful application to forfeit two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The application judge found the Crown's conduct, including pursuing a meritless application against innocent third parties and taking an intransigent attitude, amounted to a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ontario Court of Justice has an implied power to award costs in CDSA forfeiture applications, the correct standard was applied, and the quantum of costs was reasonable.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel and a breach of his section 14 Charter right to an interpreter.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the ineffective assistance claim but found no miscarriage of justice, noting trial counsel's strategic decisions were reasonable.

The Court rejected the section 14 claim, finding the appellant understood the proceedings and did not require an interpreter.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following a stabbing in an apartment building.

On appeal, he argued that the eyewitness identification was irredeemably flawed and tainted by the witness's own investigation and improper police video identification procedures, rendering the verdict unreasonable.

He also challenged the jury instructions on identification evidence, the lack of a W. (D.) instruction regarding a witness's testimony, and the instruction on the mens rea for murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the identification evidence, when combined with strong circumstantial evidence including elevator security footage and phone records, reasonably supported the conviction.

The court also found no reversible errors in the jury instructions.

The appellant, a secondary insurer, paid for a claimant's expensive prescription drug after the respondent, the primary insurer, denied coverage.

The appellant later sued the respondent for reimbursement.

The motion judge found the appellant's claim was partially statute-barred because it was discovered when the appellant first learned of the denial in October 2009.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the appellant could not have reasonably discovered its claim until the respondent finally produced the policy wording in September 2011.

The appeal was allowed and the respondent was ordered to fully reimburse the appellant.

The appellants, a second mortgagee and a tenant of a commercial property, appealed a motion judge's order regarding the distribution of a holdback from a receiver's sale.

The appellants argued that rent arrears owed by the tenant merged in a prior judgment and did not vest in the purchaser, that the second mortgagee had priority over the purchaser's claim for rent arrears, and that the tenant was entitled to a credit for a payment made under a side agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the vesting order explicitly transferred the lease and rent arrears to the purchaser, that the motion judge properly adjusted the accounts between the parties, and that the purchaser was not bound by the side agreement.

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

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The moving party sought to review and set aside an order refusing to extend the time to have a single judge's decision reviewed by a panel of the Court of Appeal.

The underlying dispute involved the termination of the moving party's membership and occupancy rights in a housing co-operative due to unpaid housing charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, agreeing with previous judges that the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

The appellant moved to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his motion to extend the time for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had previously dismissed his motion to vary an order denying an adjournment of his motion to extend time for filing a Small Claims Court appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the single judge's reasons, noting the appellant failed to appeal in a timely manner, provided no explanation for the delay, and raised no point of law or public importance.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant meat processing company sued the respondent energy retailer for rescission of a fixed price electrical contract and damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the respondent had fully explained the contract terms, including the risk that the appellant would pay more if electricity prices dropped, and that the respondent had not misled the appellant.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants' personal injury action was dismissed for delay by the registrar due to their counsel's inadvertent failure to request a status hearing.

The motion judge refused to set aside the dismissal order, finding that the respondents were significantly prejudiced by the delay.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in her assessment of prejudice, as the prejudice arose from the insolvency of co-defendants and the respondents' own failure to preserve evidence, rather than the appellants' delay.

The appeal was allowed and the action reinstated.