Stephen T. Goudge

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to stay its application in favour of arbitration.

The dispute arose from a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding tobacco smuggling, which contained an arbitration clause.

The appellant sought declarations regarding whether a class action brought by a tobacco board constituted a released claim under the agreement, affecting the respondent's right to escrow settlement payments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that while the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine issues under section 7 of the agreement, the court must determine issues under section 15 because the tobacco board was not a party to the arbitration agreement and its rights were directly implicated.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the employer unilaterally and fundamentally changed the terms of employment.

The Court also agreed it was objectively unreasonable to expect the employee to return to work for the same small employer after losing faith in them.

The damages awarded were upheld based on the Bardal factors, considering the employee's age, length of service, position, and difficulty finding other work.

The appellant appealed his sentence for an oxycodone-related offence, arguing the trial judge improperly treated his addiction as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge merely reflected an understanding of the appellant's self-awareness.

The sentence was not manifestly unfit given the appellant's criminal record, the serious problem of oxycodone in the community, and his role in spreading the drug.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment awarding a 62-year-old unskilled employee with 33 years of service 22 months' notice for wrongful dismissal.

The employer argued that multiple temporary extensions of employment constituted working notice and that notice for unskilled workers should be capped at 12 months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the multiple extensions created uncertainty requiring fresh notice under the Employment Standards Act, and affirmed that there is no absolute 12-month cap on notice periods for unskilled employees.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly used his silence as a basis for disbelieving his evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not rely on silence, but rather contrasted the appellant's trial testimony with a false story he provided at the scene of the accident.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order based on the material placed before it.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for unlawful conduct conspiracy and Purina liable for breach of contract, resulting in a $2 million damages award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, dismissing the conspiracy claim because only Purina's conduct was unlawful.

The Court also reduced the breach of contract damages, holding that damages should be calculated based on the contract's 60-day termination clause, which was the least burdensome mode of performance.

The prejudgment interest rate was reduced to the statutory rate of 5.1 percent.

However, the $30,000 punitive damages award against Purina was affirmed due to its deceitful and reprehensible conduct in surreptitiously supplying a competitor in the respondents' exclusive territory.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his request to preserve a bathroom to take further pictures for his defence.

The motion judge had also dismissed his request for production of existing pictures, finding them irrelevant to the action, which the appellant did not appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the order, as pictures of the room were deemed not relevant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing her action against Her Majesty the Queen and the Honourable Elizabeth Heneghan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons regarding judicial immunity and upholding the costs order.

The appellants were convicted of first degree murder after the Crown alleged the wife hired her co-accused to kill her husband.

On appeal, the wife argued the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to cross-examine its own witness at large after declaring her adverse under s. 9(1) of the Canada Evidence Act, without instructing the jury that the witness's lack of credibility could not be used to infer the accused were not credible or guilty.

The co-accused argued the trial judge erred in refusing to sever his trial, exposing him to highly prejudicial hearsay evidence admissible only against the wife.

The Court of Appeal allowed both appeals, finding the lack of a limiting instruction regarding the adverse witness amounted to misdirection, and the refusal to sever the trial resulted in an injustice.

Separate new trials were ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision striking its pleading.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the pleading was beyond repair.

The appellant failed to plead that the respondents joined with the original tortfeasor to continue a false publication, and the respondents' alleged failure to stop the falsehood did not make them joint tortfeasors.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of her negligence claim.

The trial judge found that the appellant failed to prove factual causation, concluding that the probable cause of the accident was an unsafe activity undertaken by the appellant on a stool, rather than the stool's wobbly steps.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding on causation was open to her on the evidence and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The City of Hamilton appealed a trial judgment finding it liable in negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct standard of care and that her findings were supported by the evidence.

The Court also found that the trial judge correctly applied the 'but for' test for causation, noting that causation is a practical question of fact best answered by ordinary common sense.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached a marketing agreement by unilaterally reassigning four counties from the respondent's territory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the respondent had complied with its obligation to develop the market to the extent possible, that the entire agreement clause governed over prior understandings, and that extrinsic evidence properly identified the nine counties as the respondent's work zones.

The appellant hospital appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting the respondent, who was previously found not criminally responsible, a conditional discharge.

The hospital argued that the respondent's recent involuntary committal under the Mental Health Act triggered a mandatory restriction of liberty hearing under the Criminal Code, and that the Board's disposition improperly blended a conditional discharge with a detention order.

The Court of Appeal held that a Mental Health Act committal does not trigger the Criminal Code hearing requirement.

The Court further found that the Board's disposition was a valid conditional discharge and was reasonable given the respondent's history and the risk management concerns.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent's submission to arbitration was not time-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation of the commercial agreement, agreeing that the parties were obliged to attempt to resolve the dispute over information delivery and costs before proceeding to arbitration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the risk of harm was not reasonably foreseeable, noting there was evidence to support this conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent municipality, though the court expressed hope that costs would not be requested.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant, a secured creditor, appealed an order approving a receiver's proposed purchase agreement and technology license agreement for the assets of the respondent companies.

The appellant argued that the proposal was identical to one previously rejected by another judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the new proposal differed significantly and that the motion judge appropriately applied the Soundair principles in approving the transaction, given the changed circumstances and the need to sell the subsidiary as a going concern.

The appellants (Developers) appealed a trial judgment finding them indebted to the respondent (Contractor), allowing the Contractor to allocate advance payments to older invoices, and finding the Developers in breach of their trust obligations under s. 7 of the Construction Lien Act.

The Contractor cross-appealed the disallowance of certain invoices and the failure to grant equitable relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the Developers owed some debt, that the Contractor properly allocated the advances after making reasonable inquiries, and that the Developers breached their trust obligations by commingling funds.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part to permit recovery on specific basement subexcavation invoices supported by approved purchase orders.