Stephen T. Goudge

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding he had no standing.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the appellant was not bound by the Site Plan Agreement, a conclusion also agreed to by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing its unjust enrichment claim for disgorgement of the respondents' profits.

The appellant argued that if a settlement agreement between the parties was found unenforceable under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, it should be entitled to disgorgement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's deprivation could not exceed damages calculated under section 8, which do not include disgorgement.

Furthermore, the regulatory scheme provided a valid juristic reason for the respondents' profits, precluding the unjust enrichment claim.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on drug trafficking and conspiracy charges.

The accused was arrested after police observed a co-accused place a duffle bag containing drugs into the trunk of his car.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding the Crown failed to prove he knew the bag contained drugs.

On appeal, the Crown argued the trial judge erred in applying the Carter test for co-conspirator hearsay and in applying the reasonable doubt standard piecemeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred on the first step of the Carter test, the ambiguous hearsay evidence would not have changed the outcome, and the trial judge properly considered the evidence as a whole.

The appellant appealed two orders dismissing and adjourning its application for an interpretation of an Ontario Regulation regarding the 2008 remuneration of Justices of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proper mechanism to challenge the government's response to a remuneration commission's recommendation is through judicial review on a standard of rationality, not by seeking an interpretation of the implementing Regulation.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying him an absolute discharge.

The Board concluded he remained a significant threat because there was a significant risk he would stop taking his medication if discharged.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

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

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $2,000 to the respondent.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was clearly moot and involved no issue that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to hear it anyway.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge declining to reinstate the proceeding.

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

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

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $750.

The parties separated after a 36-year marriage during which they operated a dairy farm.

The application judge ordered a lump sum spousal support payment, refused to allow the husband to deduct future disposition costs from his net family property, found a milk quota transfer was not a gift, and ordered the in specie division of six jointly owned farm properties.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in refusing the disposition costs deduction and in ordering the in specie division of the properties under the Family Law Act and Partition Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold.

The appeal regarding the milk quota and spousal support was dismissed.

The purchaser of a dry cleaning business sought to rescind the purchase agreement, claiming a common mistake regarding the property's zoning.

The motion judge granted rescission, finding the parties shared a mistaken assumption that the business was a 'permitted use' under the zoning by-law.

The Court of Appeal allowed the vendor's appeal, holding that the motion judge made a palpable and overriding error.

The Court found no evidence of a shared assumption about the technical 'permitted use' status, noting the business operated as a legal non-conforming use.

The Court also held that the purchaser bore the risk of zoning issues under the principle of caveat emptor, as the agreement contained no zoning conditions.

The appellant, Barclays Bank PLC, appealed a trial judgment finding its Notice of Early Termination of a complex asset-backed commercial paper transaction invalid and the respondent Devonshire Trust's Notice of Early Termination valid.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that Barclays' notice was invalid due to its fraudulent misrepresentation, bad faith, and the principle that a party cannot benefit from its own wrong, as Barclays' failure to make liquidity payments contributed to Devonshire's insolvency.

The Court also upheld the validity of Devonshire's notice.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the calculation of Barclays' Settlement Amount, substituting a figure of $264 million for the trial judge's $12,000 valuation, subject to deductions for mitigation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and administering a stupefying substance, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant's testimony on the basis that he tailored his evidence to fit arguments raised during a voir dire regarding his police statement.

The Court of Appeal held that this reasoning improperly turned the appellant's statutory right to be present at his trial against him, undermining his right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering the return of the respondent's investment funds.

The appellant argued the trial was unfair because he was self-represented, that there was insufficient evidence the respondent made the advances, and that there was no legal justification for returning the investment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the trial process, sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's findings, and that the appellant's failure to account for the advanced funds justified the order for their return.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his summary conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in law by failing to explicitly address evidence of his return to the building as indicative of consciousness of innocence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the leave application, finding that since the trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence for unassailable reasons, the bare fact of his return did not rise to a level of importance requiring explicit dismissal.

The EMEA Debtors sought leave to appeal an order approving an Allocation Protocol that provided for a joint trial by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to allocate over US$7 billion in proceeds from the sale of Nortel assets.

The moving parties argued the joint trial violated the Ontario court's independence and that the parties had previously agreed to binding arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal lacked prima facie merit as the joint trial did not infringe judicial independence and the relevant agreement did not mandate arbitration.

The appellant landlord appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent tenants $1,212,000 in damages for loss of business due to the wrongful demolition of the leased premises.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding that demolition began while the lease was still valid, and raised issues of waiver and issue estoppel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and did not amount to a palpable and overriding error.

The court also found no merit to the waiver and issue estoppel arguments, noting the parties had agreed on the quantum of damages prior to trial.

The appellant appealed a judgment for an unpaid loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and concluding that the fresh evidence raised no defence, as the money was borrowed and not repaid.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application for interim relief regarding end-of-life decisions for a patient.

The appellant sought to suspend a no-CPR order, arguing that consent was required to withdraw treatment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the existing treatment plan gave the physician discretion regarding CPR components, and the contested order was not a withdrawal of treatment but a refusal to impose treatment that offered no medical benefit and would only inflict harm.

The appellant, an Aboriginal man, was convicted of manslaughter by a jury in the District of Kenora.

He appealed his conviction on the basis that the jury roll from which his petit jury was selected was unrepresentative, as it systematically under-represented Aboriginal on-reserve residents.

The Court of Appeal found that the state failed to make reasonable efforts to address known, long-standing problems with the delivery and return rates of jury questionnaires on reserves.

This failure violated the appellant's rights under sections 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.