Lise G. Favreau

G.E.S. Construction Limited appealed the dismissal of its motion seeking a declaration that Lloyd’s Underwriters had a duty to defend and indemnify it under a 2015 insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no waiver or estoppel by Lloyd’s and no bad faith in its conduct.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aliamisse O. Mundulai’s motion for a panel review of a decision denying his request for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had dismissed his application for judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division decision denying his readmission to the Ontario Bar.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision, noting the lack of merit in the proposed appeal and emphasizing that leave to appeal was required.

The application was dismissed and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from a judgment enforcing a settlement agreement in the context of a pending arbitration.

The appellants failed to pay the agreed amount by the deadline, triggering a penalty clause.

The court found no error in the application judge’s decision to proceed by application rather than action, in the finding that the respondents had not breached their obligations of good faith, or in the enforcement of the penalty clause.

The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Arsenije Lojovic’s conviction appeal but allowed his sentence appeal, reducing his sentence from 10 years to 8 years (less pre-trial custody).

The court found that the trial judge erred by treating Lojovic’s bipolar disorder as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one.

The decision reviews the proper approach to NCR (not criminally responsible) assessments and the role of mental illness in sentencing, emphasizing that mental health conditions can reduce moral blameworthiness and the weight of deterrence and denunciation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Shahin Songhorigakien from a summary judgment ordering her to pay $500,000 plus interest and costs to the Bank of Montreal under a personal guarantee for a corporate overdraft facility.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial, that the bank owed no special duty to Songhorigakien, and that her non est factum defence had no air of reality.

The court also rejected arguments of procedural unfairness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed both the appeal and cross-appeal, setting aside the case conference judge’s order in its entirety.

The court found that the case conference judge exceeded his authority under the Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to provide adequate reasons or an evidentiary record to support his decision regarding the existence and terms of a settlement.

The lack of intelligible reasons and evidentiary basis precluded meaningful appellate review.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Kurt Ashley Ritchie from an order upholding, with modification, a separation agreement between himself and Jessica Bortoleti De Oliveira.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s adjustment of child support or in the costs award, which reflected divided success and the parties’ conduct.

The court emphasized the ongoing obligation for both parties to exchange financial information annually and confirmed that no costs would be awarded for the appeal.

The appellant, K.M., appealed convictions for sexual assault and for choking the complainant to render her incapable of resisting.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge’s reasons were not ideal, they were sufficient when read contextually.

The trial judge’s credibility findings and rejection of the defence theory of fabrication were adequately explained, and the application of the W.(D.) framework was proper.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Douglas Naus, appealed an order confirming a Consent and Capacity Board decision that he was incapable of consenting to treatment and subject to a community treatment order (CTO) requiring antipsychotic medication.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal from the incapacity finding was moot, but exercised its discretion to decide the CTO issue, holding that the Board and appeal judge erred in interpreting the statutory preconditions for a CTO.

The Court held that the Mental Health Act requires successful treatment to have occurred during a prior hospitalization, not the current one, before a CTO can be issued.

The CTO was quashed.

The appellant, Krishan Arora, appealed his sentence of seven years and two months for four counts of forcible confinement and one count of extortion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s approach to aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not double count aggravating circumstances and properly considered the appellant’s guilty plea, remorse, and gambling debts.

The sentence was found to be fit given the seriousness of the offences and their impact on the victims.

The appellant, Marvin Gurango, appealed his three-year custodial sentence for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in principle or law in the sentencing judge’s decision, nor was the sentence manifestly unfit.

The court emphasized the importance of denunciation and deterrence for this offence and found the sentence consistent with similar cases.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Sasikaran Thanapalasingam, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his wife, Tharshika Jeganathan.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis or conclusions.

The court held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the finding that the murder was planned and deliberate, and that the appellant’s intoxication did not impair his capacity to form the requisite intent.

The trial judge’s consideration of the evidence, including the impact of alcohol and alleged mental disturbance, was thorough and appropriate.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Dwayne Gordon’s appeal from his guilty plea to human trafficking-related offences, finding that the plea was uninformed.

Gordon believed, based on his counsel’s assurances, that the plea judge would impose no more than six additional months in custody, but was instead sentenced to two-and-a-half years.

The court held that this misunderstanding constituted a serious unknown legal consequence and that Gordon would not have pleaded guilty had he known the true risk.

The plea was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a separation agreement and fixing the date of separation as July 31, 2018.

The application judge set aside the agreement under s. 56(4) of the Family Law Act because the appellant failed to disclose a pending $4,000,000 investment in his company.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the non-disclosure warranted setting aside the agreement on fairness grounds.

The Court also upheld the application judge's factual determination of the separation date, finding it was supported by the evidence of the parties' ongoing interactions.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to challenge the validity of his deceased mother's will.

The motion judge dismissed the application because the appellant failed to comply with a previous order requiring him to serve a notice of change of solicitor or a notice of intention to act in person within 30 days.

The Court of Appeal held it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the dismissal was a final order.

The Court found no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 15.04(9) given the appellant's pattern of delay and non-compliance.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal against the respondent Samir Chhina, the self-represented appellants sought costs of $35,000 for the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued the appellants failed to establish they had forgone remunerative activity to justify a fee allowance.

The Court of Appeal agreed the appellants did not meet their evidentiary onus but awarded a lump sum of $10,000 all-inclusive for costs of the motion and the appeal.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent builder.

The appellants had purchased a newly built home but failed to transfer the closing funds until 9 minutes past the 5:00 p.m. deadline on the extended closing date.

The respondent terminated the agreement relying on a 'time is of the essence' clause, but subsequently offered to revive the agreement for an additional $113,000, which the appellants paid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the 5:00 p.m. deadline was unambiguous, the termination was not unconscionable, the revival fee was part of a new contract rather than an impermissible penalty, and the appellants did not act under economic duress.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The respondent had discharged the firearm during a shootout in a public parking lot.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by prioritizing rehabilitation over denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

However, the majority dismissed the appeal and declined to incarcerate the respondent, citing his significant rehabilitative progress and the time already served under the conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his first-degree murder conviction, arguing that his confession, obtained during a 13-hour police interrogation using the Reid Technique, should have been excluded.

The appellant and an intervener argued for a new common law rule creating a rebuttable presumption of involuntariness for confessions elicited via the Reid Technique.

The Court of Appeal declined to amend the confessions rule, finding the existing framework sufficient.

However, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred by failing to assess the cumulative effect of the prolonged, aggressive questioning and by making a palpable and overriding error of fact in concluding the appellant had not fallen asleep during the interrogation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, sexual assault, and assault with a weapon against his stepdaughter.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, made unsupported credibility findings, and failed to properly apply the W.(D.) framework to exculpatory evidence from the complainant's mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, made credibility findings supported by the evidence, and adequately explained his reasons for accepting the complainant's testimony over the appellant's and the mother's.