Karen M. Weiler

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing ammunition while subject to a prohibition order under s. 100(2) of the Criminal Code.

He argued the original order was invalid because it failed to specify a reasonable period for surrendering ammunition as required by s. 100(13).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that challenging the validity of the original order constituted an impermissible collateral attack.

The court also found the actus reus was proven, as possessing ammunition three years after the order exceeded any reasonable time limit, and dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing a guarantee in favour of the respondent bank.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the defence of misrepresentation was defeated by the strict terms of the guarantee.

The Court also rejected the appellants' other defences, including an alleged promise not to sue, failure to fully advance a loan, misapplication of funds, and improper approval of the sale of business assets.

The appellant was convicted of extortion after demanding money and a vehicle from a family member who had sexually abused the appellant's children.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on his alcohol consumption.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no air of reality to the intoxication defence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the sentencing judge erred in finding the appellant was unemployed.

Given the appellant's role as the sole financial provider and caregiver for his family, the custodial sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife and appealed his conviction.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his prior discreditable conduct with his wife and similar fact evidence from his former common law wife.

The Court of Appeal held the prior discreditable conduct was admissible to provide context, show motive, and explain the complainant's delay in reporting.

While the trial judge erred in the basis for admitting the similar fact evidence, the Court applied the Handy framework and found the evidence was properly admissible as its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of uttering a threat to cause death to his former partner.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

On further appeal, he argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence of the complainant's father, which affected the core of the reasoning process.

The Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge did misapprehend a portion of the father's testimony, the error did not affect the core of the reasoning.

The trial judge had already accepted the complainant's evidence and rejected the appellant's version based on credibility findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed their Dangerous Offender designations and indeterminate sentences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the designations and indeterminate sentences, and ordered a new hearing.

Additionally, because several convictions had been previously set aside by the court, the fixed sentence of twelve years and two months was quashed and a new hearing was ordered under section 686(8) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and sexual assault on several grounds, including inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, flawed pre-trial identification, an alibi that he was out of the country, discrepancies regarding his physical appearance, and the trial judge's reliance on prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly addressed the evidentiary issues and that any minor errors did not result in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed an eleven-month sentence for breaching a non-contact clause in a recognizance of bail on a pending sexual assault charge.

The breach involved an unintentional, two-minute meeting with the victim with no threats or violence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was outside the appropriate range, granted leave to appeal, and reduced the sentence to four months, with two months' credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing fresh evidence of his concerted efforts at rehabilitation since his release on bail, including attending programs and relocating.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, noting that while the appellant committed a minor theft while on bail, his severe addiction meant rehabilitation would not always be linear.

The sentence was reduced to the fourteen months already served.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal, finding the new theft conviction belied the rehabilitation claims.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing that a doctor had doubts about his diagnosis of a major mental illness.

The Court of Appeal found that the doctor did not dispute the diagnosis and believed discharge was inappropriate due to the risk of harm presented by the appellant.

The Court held that the Board's decision was reasonable, supported by evidence, and represented the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a young person, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon following an attack at a bus station.

The sole issue at trial was identification.

The appellant appealed the convictions, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found that the pre-trial identification procedures were flawed and prejudicial, and the eyewitness descriptions of the assailant did not match the appellant's physical characteristics.

The Court concluded the identification evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts, allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and entered acquittals.

The infant plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries when he rode his bicycle down a ramp at an apartment building owned by the appellant Turret Realties Inc. and into the path of a vehicle driven by the appellant Anne Busk.

The trial judge found Turret 50% liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act and the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent, while dismissing claims against the driver.

Turret appealed on multiple grounds, including reasonable apprehension of bias, liability, and damages.

The plaintiff cross-appealed regarding contributory negligence, loss of interdependent relationship, and the refusal to award a management fee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal and allowed the cross-appeal in part, awarding a management fee of $302,989 and adjusting the tax gross-up accordingly.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder for killing his ex-girlfriend.

He appealed the conviction on several grounds, including the admission of post-offence conduct, similar fact evidence, and hypnotically enhanced testimony from a witness.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence, seeking an increase in the 10-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and upholding the sentence as fit and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action as an abuse of process.

The motions judge had concluded that commencing a new action against individual defendants after the court refused to amend the claim to name them in a prior action constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error in principle, as the prior decision was purely procedural and did not deal with the merits of the claim.

The appeal was allowed and the action was permitted to proceed.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on comments made by the trial judge during a costs endorsement.

The trial proceeded undefended after defence counsel advised she was instructed not to attend.

The Court of Appeal found that the impugned comments, while unfortunate, were made after judgment was granted and in response to a request for solicitor and client costs, and tended to support rather than attack the defendant's interests.

The test for reasonable apprehension of bias was not met, and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, a housing co-operative resident receiving social assistance, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on a rent calculation condition in the co-op's operating agreement with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

The Board of Inquiry added CMHC as a respondent, but the Divisional Court quashed the order.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the condition was a valid exercise of the federal spending power under s. 91(1A) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court applied the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, concluding that the provincial Human Rights Code must be read down so as not to apply to the core of the federal spending power, thereby exempting CMHC and the impugned condition from the Code's application.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim regarding a commercial lease.

The appellant argued that a lease was assigned to it or that an oral agreement for a five-year lease was reached.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no valid assignment in writing as required, and that the evidence did not support an oral agreement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his solicitor negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01(1).

This was the appellant's third action dismissed for delay, stemming from a 1956 construction contract dispute.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's findings that the appellant was responsible for the delay, that there was no justifiable excuse, and that the defendants suffered prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following written reasons, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the parties' submissions on costs.

The court declined to change the disposition of costs previously made.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, uttering threats, unlawful confinement, and failure to comply with probation, as well as his 12-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge failed to consider evidence of collusion regarding other charges on which he was acquitted when assessing the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the totality of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was within the appropriate range and the appellant's recent good behaviour was a matter for the parole board.