Karen M. Weiler

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine and his sentence of 38 months' imprisonment.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the key Crown witness and that his sentence offended the parity principle and failed to account for time spent on house arrest while on bail.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the witness's evidence was uncontradicted and supported by objective records.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed; although the trial judge may have erred in not considering the bail conditions, the sentence remained fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record and the co-accused's cooperation with police.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and uttering a threat against his wife.

At trial, the judge relied on a letter written by the complainant's family law lawyer to the appellant's lawyer, which referenced a history of violence, to confirm the complainant's allegations and bolster her credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the statements in the letter were hearsay and not admissible for the truth of their contents.

Because the trial judge impermissibly used the letter to confirm the history of violence, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for breach of trust against his employer and fraud involving identity theft of credit card holders.

The trial judge noted the significant disruption to victims and financial institutions, and although the actual loss was limited to $40,000 due to early detection, the potential for greater loss existed.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant employer appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for malicious prosecution and awarding over $2 million in damages to a former employee and his wife.

The employer had provided police with surveillance video allegedly showing the employee stealing money, but deliberately withheld exculpatory portions of the video that corroborated the employee's innocent explanation.

The employee was convicted, fired, and lost his grievance arbitration before the exculpatory evidence was discovered, leading to his convictions being quashed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's arguments that the claim fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator and that it had not 'initiated' the prosecution.

The Court upheld the jury's significant awards for general, aggravated, and punitive damages, finding them justified by the employer's callous and malicious conduct over a 13-year period.

A cross-appeal regarding costs was also dismissed.

The appellant and her sisters retained the respondent law firms for estate litigation.

By agreement, the law firms' accounts were paid by a corporation owned by the sisters.

The appellant later discovered the accounts contained substantial undisclosed premiums and sought to have them assessed.

The motion judge dismissed the request, finding the appellant lacked standing as the corporation paid the bills.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was the true client and had standing.

Furthermore, the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order an assessment because the solicitors failed to disclose the premiums or advise the clients of their right to an assessment.

The Hudson's Bay Company sold a division, transferring employees to a successor employer who established a new pension plan.

The transferred employees sought a pro rata share of the actuarial surplus from the original pension plan and challenged the employer's payment of plan expenses from the pension fund.

The Court of Appeal held that under the plan documentation, the transferred employees had no entitlement to the surplus, and thus the employer did not breach any trust by not transferring it.

Furthermore, the court found that the employer was legally entitled to pay plan administration and fund management expenses from the pension fund based on valid amendments to the trust agreements.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held that the sentence was fit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for a declaration that they had obtained an easement or covenant entitling them to domestic water from a well on the respondents' property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the obligation to supply water was a positive covenant requiring the expenditure of money and the doing of acts, which does not run with the land.

The court also rejected the argument that a binding perpetual contract existed between the parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple fraud-related offences and was sentenced to three years' incarceration and ordered to pay $19,542.42 in restitution.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing rehabilitation prospects, overemphasizing his criminal record, and imposing restitution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the custodial sentence, noting the appellant's extensive criminal record and the seriousness of the offences.

However, the Court set aside the restitution order because the sentencing judge failed to consider the appellant's ability to pay.

The plaintiff suffered a low back injury in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the defendant successfully moved for a finding that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for permanent serious impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge found the impairment was neither permanent nor serious.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in finding the impairment was not permanent, as there was no evidence the pain would completely resolve.

The Court also found the trial judge took an overly narrow approach to whether the impairment was serious by focusing only on the plaintiff's ability to resume employment and household duties, without considering the effect of continuing pain on her enjoyment of life.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant client appealed an order quashing a registrar's order for the assessment of solicitor's accounts rendered by the respondent law firm.

The motion judge had held that section 3 of the Solicitors Act required all bills, whether interim or final, to be assessed within one month of delivery.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that section 3 applies only to final bills, and the evidence showed the accounts in question were interim accounts.

The registrar's order for assessment was restored.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application regarding his mother's estate, raising issues about the passing of accounts, ownership of joint bank accounts, release of personal goods, an expired PPSA registration, and costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion or findings, noting the lack of independent corroboration for the appellant's claim to the joint accounts under s. 13 of the Evidence Act.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a minor amendment to the order regarding personal goods to allow the appellant to seek further direction if necessary.

The appellant appealed a decision finding he had not acquired title to a Mill Reserve by adverse possession.

He argued that a fence and open possession for over ten years established his claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the appellant's use of the land was not inconsistent with the owners' intended use of keeping the land for a millpond or head pond.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her solicitor negligence claim, arguing the respondent law firm failed to ensure she received independent legal advice before mortgaging her home for a family business.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant was a partner in the business and knowingly mortgaged her home to provide funds for it.

The appellant brought an action seeking rescission of a property sale and damages.

He requested a bilingual proceeding under s. 126 of the Courts of Justice Act.

On the date of the respondents' summary judgment motion, no bilingual judge was available.

The motion judge refused an adjournment, finding the appellant was using language rights to delay, and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the right to a bilingual proceeding is quasi-constitutional and not subject to judicial discretion to deny based on perceived abuse of process.

The matter was remitted to a bilingual judge.

The appellant brought a motion requesting that Justice Blair recuse himself from the Court of Appeal files involving the appellant.

Justice Blair dismissed the request.

The appellant then orally requested a review of Justice Blair's decision before a panel.

The panel agreed with Justice Blair's decision, found no error, and dismissed the request for review.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay $424,343.09 to the respondent bank.

The appeal was heard alongside another case involving the same appellant and raised the same substantive issue: the right to a hearing before a bilingual judge under section 126 of the Courts of Justice Act.

For the reasons given in the companion case, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and remitted the original motion to a bilingual judge of the Superior Court.

The appellant, a person with a disability who shares joint custody of her three children on an alternating week basis, appealed a decision reducing the basic needs component of her income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The Tribunal had awarded her 100 per cent of the shelter allowance but only 50 per cent of the basic needs allowance, reflecting the shared custody arrangement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjust the basic needs allowance to reflect the reality of joint custody, as the appellant did not have primary care and control of the children more than 50 per cent of the time.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of tax evasion and making false statements in his tax returns.

The trial judge found that all essential elements of the offences were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but acquitted the respondent because she could not calculate the exact amount of unpaid tax due to an allegedly understated opening net worth statement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Crown is not required to negate every possibility regarding the amounts put forward, especially when the taxpayer failed to keep proper records and the matters are peculiarly within their knowledge.

The acquittals were set aside, convictions were entered, and the matter was remitted for sentencing.

The appellant town appealed a motion judge's decision that claims made against it in a construction dispute were excluded from its insurance coverage.

The underlying action alleged misrepresentations in a tender bid, breach of contract, and breach of a duty of good faith.

The Court of Appeal applied the three-step process from Scalera to determine the true nature of the claims.

The court found that the essential character of the claims related to the tender process and contractual performance, which were unambiguously excluded under the policy.

The appeal was dismissed.