Robert Sharpe

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, which included a dangerous offender designation.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the proceedings and in assessing future risk and the predicate offence for the dangerous offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings regarding the stay.

The Court also upheld the dangerous offender designation, noting the trial judge properly relied on the appellant's criminal record, expert clinical assessment of high risk for violent recidivism, and history of breaching release conditions.

The predicate offence of robbery at knifepoint was found to constitute an act of serious personal violence.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing their claim against the respondent bank and granting judgment to the bank on its counterclaim.

The appellants argued their procedural rights were denied because the motions judge did not follow a prior endorsement by another judge regarding a mini-trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the parties had agreed to proceed before the motions judge and the prior order was not binding.

The court upheld the finding that there was no genuine issue for trial, as the appellants had defaulted on their line of credit and mortgage loan.

The appellant mother appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her appeal from a trial judgment that made her child a Crown ward without access.

She argued the Children's Aid Society breached its statutory duty to provide services and that the trial judge erred by not extending the period of CAS wardship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the CAS made numerous attempts to assist the mother, which were frustrated by her own conduct, and that an extension of wardship was not justified given the child's best interests.

Following a judgment allowing appeals and cross-appeals in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, ordering Charles Sr. to pay Diana $50,000, Charles Jr. to pay Diana $15,000, Lisa to pay Charles Jr. $15,000, and Ford to pay Lisa $15,000.

All additional requests for costs were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the appeals in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker.

The court ordered that the costs of the appeal in McCallum v. Baker be awarded to the respondent, fixed in the amount of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.