Lois Roberts

The appellant, a 27-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for his role in a home invasion involving robbery, unlawful confinement, and discharging a firearm.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly weigh his youth and lack of a criminal record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge gave careful reasons, considered all mitigating and aggravating factors, and imposed a sentence that was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellant, who was previously found NCRMD, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

At the outset of his review hearing, the appellant objected to being addressed by his legal name and to the constitution of the Board.

The Chair gave the appellant a five-second ultimatum before cutting off his audio and video feed, proceeding with the hearing in his absence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Chair acted precipitously and failed to exercise the judicial patience and restraint required under section 672.5(10)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code before excluding an accused from a hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal, specifically challenging the inclusion of commission income and a bonus during the 16-month notice period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the commission award, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent should continue to receive commission on all advertising revenue.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the bonus, finding the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding a guaranteed bonus.

The costs award from the court below was also reduced.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to detain him and search his vehicle, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the traffic stop under the Highway Traffic Act was lawful, even with a dual purpose of intelligence gathering.

The officer was justified in asking the appellant to step out of the vehicle to verify his identity, at which point the drugs were in plain view.

The appellant, a high school teacher, appealed her conviction and 13-month sentence for sexual exploitation of a 17-year-old student.

The trial judge found that the appellant engaged in a prolonged, sexually charged relationship with the student and had sexual intercourse with him while he was intoxicated, relying on the student's testimony, corroborating witness testimony, and telecommunications data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentencing judge did not err in treating character reference letters as evidence of the appellant's position of trust rather than as mitigating factors.

The appellant construction company sued the respondent city for alleged breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after discovering asbestos at a work site.

The motions judge granted summary judgment to the city, finding the appellant failed to prove it suffered actual damages and refusing to grant declaratory relief for hypothetical future claims by employees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the appellant's claims for administrative and legal costs lacked evidentiary support, and agreeing that declaratory relief was inappropriate where the dispute had yet to arise and could affect third-party rights.

The appellant, who had been continually detained under certificates of involuntary admission since 2005, appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming his civil committal.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal as moot based on a recent Court of Appeal decision regarding the constitutionality of the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal judge erred in finding the matter moot, as there were live factual and legal issues regarding the appellant's specific detention.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Superior Court for an expedited rehearing.