Stephen T. Goudge

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to expressly address the application of the Gladue principles.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the trial judge should have addressed them, citing R. v. Kakekagamick.

However, because the custodial portion of the sentence had already been served and the appellant was doing well with a proposed parole plan, the court declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing there was a misunderstanding over the view expressed by the pre-trial judge as to the appropriate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting it could not resolve the conflict in the affidavits and reminding the bar to place the essence of pre-trial plea discussions on the record.

The term of imprisonment and probation were found to be appropriate.

The appellants appealed their convictions for fraud and their sentences.

The Court of Appeal found the fraud convictions unreasonable because there was no admissible expert evidence explaining how the seized equipment operated to capture financial data.

The police officer who testified was not qualified to give such evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the fraud convictions were quashed, and acquittals were entered.

Consequently, the sentence for driving while disqualified was varied to time served.

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

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a receivership order, arguing his consent to the order was obtained through fraud or conditioned on a $150,000 advance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that there was no evidence of fraud or conditional consent in the material before him.

The appellant employer appealed a trial decision finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding pension options.

The deceased employee had selected a single life pension, and his spouse signed a waiver form provided by the employer that deviated from the Superintendent approved form.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the employer's waiver form deviated in substance from the prescribed form under the Pension Benefits Act and was therefore invalid.

The spouse was entitled to damages equivalent to the joint and survivor pension benefits.

The Attorney General appealed orders setting rates of compensation for amicus curiae appointed in three criminal proceedings.

The Crown argued that courts have no jurisdiction to fix the rate of compensation for amicus curiae, as only Parliament can allocate public funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that both superior and statutory courts have the jurisdiction to fix the rate of compensation for amicus curiae as a necessary incident of their jurisdiction to appoint amicus.

The court found that such orders do not infringe constitutional principles and are authorized by the Proceedings Against the Crown Act and the Financial Administration Act.

The trial judges did not err in setting rates that exceeded legal aid rates, as amicus serves the court and the administration of justice, and the rates were based on appropriate factors.

The appellant racetrack owner refused to permit the respondent to race his horses at its tracks unless he signed an access agreement.

The respondent refused and sought a declaration from the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC) that he could not be required to sign the agreement.

The ORC dismissed the application, but the Divisional Court found the ORC's decision unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the ORC's decision was reasonable, as the access agreement did not deny the respondent an opportunity to be heard before the ORC, nor did it give the appellant absolute unfettered power to arbitrarily exclude him.

The appeal was allowed and the ORC's decision restored.

The parties were common law spouses who separated after 23 years.

The trial judge awarded the respondent lump sum spousal support of $135,000, finding that the appellant had hidden assets and there was a real risk he would not pay periodic support.

The appellant appealed, arguing that lump sum support should only be awarded in very unusual circumstances based on prior case law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the court's discretion to award lump sum support is not restricted to rare cases, and upheld the trial judge's decision based on the appellant's non-disclosure and the need for a clean break.

The appellants, two brothers, appealed their convictions for second degree murder following the stabbing death of the victim during an altercation in an apartment.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding self-defence, provocation, intent, causation, and in responding to jury questions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions or responses to the jury, and concluding there was no air of reality to the defences of provocation or self-defence.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and uttering a threat against an intoxicated person in custody.

At trial, the parties agreed that a crucial portion of an audio surveillance recording was inaudible, and the appellant testified to what he had said.

During deliberations, the trial judge re-listened to the recording, concluded the appellant had said something materially different, and used this finding to reject his credibility and convict him without reopening the trial.

The Court of Appeal held that this denied the appellant the opportunity to make full answer and defence, constituting a denial of natural justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant tenant operated a gas bar on premises leased from the respondent landlord.

After discovering a failed underground fuel line, the tenant capped it, terminated the lease, and vacated the premises, leaving the underground tanks and lines behind.

The landlord successfully applied for a declaration that the lease required the tenant to repair the tanks and lines.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the underground tanks and lines were 'trade fixtures' rather than 'improvements' under the lease.

Because the lease's repair obligation applied only to improvements, the tenant had no duty to repair the trade fixtures.

The appeal was allowed and the landlord's application was dismissed.

The appellant sued its insurance brokers (the respondents) for leaving it underinsured and for negligence in failing to assist with settling its insurance claim.

The respondents claimed indemnification from the third-party insurer.

The motion judge stayed both the main action and the third-party claim because the appellant had signed a release in favour of the insurer.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay for the underinsured claim, finding that the third-party claim for indemnification was incompatible with the main action and could not succeed.

However, the stay remained for the negligence claim regarding the settlement.

The respondent filed a property claim in bankruptcy for funds it loaned to the bankrupt, alleging the loan was induced by fraud.

The trustee disallowed the claim, but the appeal judge found fraud and imposed a constructive trust over the remaining funds.

The trustee appealed, arguing the appeal judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the fraud allegations and erred in imposing a constructive trust.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the process was agreed upon and the constructive trust was a just remedy to prevent the bankrupt and its tainted creditors from being unjustly enriched by the fraud.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, brought a libel action in Ontario against the out-of-province publishers of an academic journal and the author of a negative book review.

The motion judge stayed the action, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, applying the Van Breda framework to find that Ontario had presumptive jurisdiction because paper copies of the journal were distributed in Ontario, constituting a tort committed in the province.

The court further held that the respondents failed to rebut the presumption and that no other forum was more convenient.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a judgment finding that an easement had been created by proprietary estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis that all conditions for proprietary estoppel, including unconscionability, were met based on the course of dealings with the respondent's predecessor in title.

The Court also held that s. 50(14) of the Planning Act provided a complete answer to the appellant's arguments regarding subdivision control.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, and dangerous driving.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge made a serious error relating to self-defence in the main charge to the jury and in answering a jury question.

The Court of Appeal found that the misdirection affected all charges, as the events occurred in one continuous series.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed her sentence for a serious breach of trust.

She had no prior criminal record, had serious health issues, and made full restitution.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge failed to give proper consideration to the principle of restraint under s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served followed by six months of probation.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the onus of proof and properly concluded that the respondent had satisfied its onus while the appellants failed to advance an affirmative defence.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's actions in inviting the respondent into Michigan and facilitating his entry constituted reaching into Ontario sufficiently to establish a real and substantial connection.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondent.