Stephen T. Goudge

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over a contract dispute with a British Columbia respondent.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in fact by concluding the contracts were made in British Columbia.

Instead, the appellant had made counter-offers that were accepted by the respondent's delivery of goods in Ontario.

Consequently, the contracts were made in Ontario, triggering the presumption of a real and substantial connection under Rule 17.02(f).

The Court also found Ontario to be the convenient forum and allowed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for five counts of robbery, possession of prohibited ammunition, and possession of stolen property, as well as his seven-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's verdict was supported by ample circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records, video evidence, and similar fact evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed; despite the appellant being a youthful first-time offender, the court held that the seven-year sentence was fit given the gravity of the armed robberies, and the trial judge did not err in prioritizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to pass accounts as guardian of property, arguing that leave was required but not sought or granted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that leave was implicitly granted by the motion judge based on the respondent's position as a beneficiary and trustee under the will.

The court also declined to interfere with the scope of the order or the costs awarded below.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80.

The trial judge found a breach of the appellant's section 10(b) Charter rights because the police failed to adequately facilitate contact with his counsel of choice, but admitted the breathalyzer readings under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower courts that the evidence was admissible and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent for delivered goods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no trial was required as the appellants acknowledged they had no evidence the goods were not delivered.

The court also found no basis to reduce the agreed-upon interest rate or to stay the judgment pending the trial of the appellants' counterclaim.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order, arguing the motion judge lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of pleadings in the motion record and issues with the style of cause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the pleadings were before the motion judge and the style of cause challenge could not be raised for the first time on appeal.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for handgun possession.

They argued that their ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached during a police search following a taxi stop and their subsequent flight, and that the trial judge should have recused himself for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding that the police had grounds for an investigative detention and the searches were valid protective pat-downs.

Even if the searches exceeded permissible limits, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The bias claim was also rejected.

The sentence appeals were dismissed, as the sentences of 8 years and 5.5 years, while at the high end, revealed no error in principle given the appellants' prior records and the context of the offences.

Following a change in corporate control, the new management of Echo Energy Canada Inc. sought to assess the paid accounts of three law firms retained by the former management.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding no 'special circumstances' under s. 11 of the Solicitors Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part.

The Court found that the application judge erred in principle by adopting a lawyer-focused perspective and failing to consider evidence that the former directors may not have acted in the company's best interests when approving the accounts of litigation counsel (Lenczner and Voorheis).

Special circumstances were established for those accounts.

However, the appeal regarding the corporate counsel (McCarthy) was dismissed as no special circumstances were shown.

The appellant was acquitted at trial of possessing and accessing child pornography after the trial judge excluded his statement to police due to voluntariness concerns and found the Crown failed to prove knowledge and control of the files found on his computer.

The summary conviction appeal court judge overturned the acquittal and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge erred in relying on the appellant's mother's evidence regarding his cognitive limitations and in failing to infer guilty knowledge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that the summary conviction appeal court judge failed to accord proper deference to the trial judge's factual findings and misapprehended the trial judge's permissible use of the mother's evidence.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that it owed a duty to defend the respondents.

The insurer argued that coverage was excluded under a clause for claims arising from damage to property the insured owns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the exclusion clause was written in the present tense and did not apply to property that the respondents formerly owned but no longer owned at the time of the claim.

The respondents were awarded costs on a full indemnity scale.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to each respondent in the amount of $2,000.

The appellant appealed against a disposition order of the Ontario Review Board under section 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Board's decision and concluded there was no basis for finding it unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a bankruptcy order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the respondents were owed more than $1,000 due to a prior costs order and that the appellant was unable to pay his debts as they came due within six months of the application.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order granting an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjournment was an interlocutory order and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction.

Costs of $700 were awarded to the respondent, reduced due to the late filing of materials.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its application for a declaration interpreting provisions of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 regarding the registration status of a broker or salesperson no longer employed by a brokerage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge that there was no live dispute or lis between the parties, as the specific broker's registration had been revoked.

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

The self-represented appellant appealed the final judgment of the Superior Court of Justice striking her statements of claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the comprehensive reasons of the judge at first instance and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $1,000 to the respondents.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada appealed an order requiring the production of an aircraft's cockpit voice recorder (CVR) to NAV Canada in the context of civil litigation arising from an airplane crash.

The Board argued the motion judge applied the wrong legal test under s. 28(6) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly balanced the public interest in the proper administration of justice against the statutory privilege attached to the CVR.

The court upheld the production order, noting the CVR's high relevance and reliability, but reversed a minor order regarding a flight animation that was not properly before the motion judge.

The appellant, former Chief Financial Officer of the respondent corporation, appealed the dismissal of his application for a change of control payment.

The agreement entitled him to a payment if he ceased to be an officer 'within six months of the date on which control of the Corporation changes'.

The application judge held this required termination to occur after the change of control.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the plain language and commercial purpose of the agreement applied as long as the termination and change of control occurred within six months of each other, regardless of which came first.

The appeal was allowed and the payment ordered.

The appellant was severely burned after tripping over cinder blocks and falling into a fire pit at a party hosted by tenants on a residential property.

The trial judge found the tenants and the appellant each 50% at fault but dismissed the action against the landlord, finding he owed no duty of care because the rental agreement relieved him of maintenance obligations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the landlord admitted to being an occupier in his pleadings and that the Landlord and Tenant Act imposes a non-waivable statutory duty on residential landlords to maintain the premises.

The landlord was found jointly and severally liable with the tenants for 50% of the appellant's damages.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal damages award, arguing that disability benefits and gross sales from the respondent's new business should be deducted from the award.

The Court of Appeal held that the disability benefits were from privately-placed insurance and should not be deducted.

However, the court found that the respondent's net income of $7,439 from his new business should be deducted from the general damages award.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect this deduction.