Julie A. Thorburn

The appellant pleaded guilty to numerous offences including break and enter, robbery, dangerous driving, and assault causing bodily harm, and received a global sentence of five years' incarceration pursuant to a joint submission.

On appeal, the appellant challenged only the lifetime driving prohibition imposed for the single count of dangerous driving, which the Crown conceded was not available under the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentence appeal in part, reducing the driving prohibition from life to the maximum available period of ten years and nine months, but declined the appellant's request for a work-related carve-out from the prohibition.

The appellant appealed a 12-month custodial sentence, less 5 months pre-sentence credit, imposed for disobeying a court order under the Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking Act, 2017, which prohibited him from contacting or being near the complainant.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to respect the jump principle, as his prior sentences for breach of court orders had never exceeded 90 days.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jump principle is not iron-clad and departure was warranted given the appellant's 18 prior convictions for disobeying court orders, his lack of rehabilitative progress, and the ineffectiveness of previous sanctions.

The sentence fell within the applicable range and was not demonstrably unfit.

The appellants sought to enforce a Property Partnership Agreement granting them an option to purchase a residential property from the respondent, their mother.

The application judge declared the Agreement unenforceable on the basis that it contained an incomplete essential term regarding distribution of excess sale proceeds, and further found undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, and unconscionability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the incomplete term was non-essential and severable, that no presumption of undue influence arose given the respondent's capacity and the specific nature of the relationship, that independent legal advice was received before the Agreement was signed, and that the unconscionability analysis failed to meet the threshold established in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Two appellants, addicted to fentanyl, set fire to a rowhouse using Molotov cocktails at the direction of their fentanyl dealer, killing three occupants and seriously injuring a fourth.

Both pleaded guilty to three counts of manslaughter and one count of arson causing bodily harm and received sentences of 16 and 17 years respectively, plus $250,000 restitution orders each.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's treatment of mitigating factors including addiction and mental health, and held the sentences were not demonstrably unfit.

However, the court quashed the restitution orders, finding the sentencing judge failed to weigh the appellants' ability to pay and imposed them as a mechanical afterthought.

Fresh evidence of post-sentencing cooperation with authorities was not admitted.

The appellant property owners association appealed the dismissal of its action in proprietary estoppel, claiming it had acquired an easement over a City-owned water lot where it had installed seasonal docks for decades.

The trial judge found that the City's 1956 policy permitting the dock was not contractual and the City never made an unambiguous promise not to revoke it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the requirements for proprietary estoppel were not met.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of the proceeds of crime, and obstruction of a peace officer.

He argued the trial judge failed to properly scrutinize the evidence of an unsavoury witness, improperly refused to draw an adverse inference against the Crown for failing to call a witness, and improperly used his silence at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the witness's credibility, identified confirmatory evidence, and correctly applied the law regarding the accused's decision not to testify.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his motion to set aside final family law orders and requiring him to obtain leave before bringing further motions until outstanding costs were paid.

He also sought to appeal a $20,000 costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant misread the leave order and failed to identify any errors by the motion judge.

The Court awarded the respondent $10,000 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the appellant's improper conduct, and directed that the costs order is enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office as a support order.

The appellant sought to enforce a Chilean arbitral award in Ontario against the respondent, a non-party to the arbitration, arguing the respondent assumed the judgment debtor's liabilities through an Italian spin-off agreement.

The motion judge stayed the enforcement application on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding that the threshold issue of liability must be determined first and that Italy was the clearly more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge did not err in severing liability from enforcement, applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, or granting a temporary stay pending the resolution of Italian proceedings.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He argued that his counsel failed to properly advise him on his right to a jury trial, his right not to testify, and his right to appear in person rather than virtually.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and found that while the failure to advise on the jury election was not established, trial counsel failed to provide competent advice regarding the appellant's right to testify and his right to appear in person.

These failures deprived the appellant of the ability to make fundamental decisions about his defence, undermining trial fairness and resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial by judge and jury was ordered.

After guilty pleas to two counts of possessing loaded prohibited firearms, the appellant sought sentence reduction and Downes credit.

The court granted leave but upheld the seven-year global sentence and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant challenged admission of drug evidence after a found s. 10(b) breach, arguing exclusion under s. 24(2).

The court found no reviewable error in the trial judge’s Grant analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant challenged Charter rulings after police found fentanyl during a search incident to detention.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on search scope and right-to-counsel compliance and dismissed the appeal.

In a criminal appeal involving fraud convictions, the moving party sought additional non-privileged disclosure to support proposed fresh-evidence abuse-of-process claims.

Applying prior case-management directions and existing disclosure rulings, the court found no basis for further compelled production on the issues properly before it and dismissed the motion.

The appellant challenged orders in bankruptcy proceedings including standing rulings, estate consolidation, and treatment of approved claims.

The court found no right of appeal under s. 193(a) or (c) of the BIA, declined leave under s. 193(e), and held the appellant had not timely invoked available statutory claim-challenge mechanisms.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, a church, sought an injunction restraining the termination of its commercial lease by the landlord pending its appeal of a decision validating a 30-day notice of termination.

The Court of Appeal granted the injunction, finding that the interpretation of conflicting lease amendments raised a serious issue to be tried, the church would suffer irreparable harm due to its extensive charitable operations and the risk of the appeal becoming moot, and the balance of convenience favoured the church as it continued to pay rent.

The moving party defendants sought an extension of time to deliver their Notice of Appeal from a trial decision finding personal liability for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with a real estate investment.

The motion judge applied the well-settled test for extensions of time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeal as the central issue.

The moving parties failed to identify any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's findings, which included adverse credibility findings based on the failure to call a key witness and the failure to preserve business records.

The motion was denied with costs.

Appeal from summary judgment granting declaratory relief regarding a mortgage registered as security for a $300,000 consulting fee contingent on the receipt of a cannabis cultivation licence from Health Canada.

The motion judge found that the fee was conditional on licence issuance and, since no licence was ever obtained, the payment obligation never crystallized.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the mortgage was not a standalone unconditional obligation but security for a contingent payment, and that the motion judge properly considered the factual matrix including the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Transfer and Consultancy Agreement.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant residing in California, sought an extension of time to perfect two appeals arising from a defamation default judgment and an order striking his own action as frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal applied the test for extending time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeals.

Finding that the moving party had been properly served in the underlying proceedings and had failed to identify any reversible errors, the court concluded the appeals lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied with costs.