Karen M. Weiler

The respondent sought costs following an appeal.

The appellant argued that the time claimed by the respondent for preparation was excessive.

The Court of Appeal agreed in part with the appellant's submissions and fixed the costs payable to the respondent at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant, Meditrust Healthcare Inc., operated a national mail-order pharmacy business through subsidiaries to comply with provincial regulations.

Meditrust sued the respondents for various economic torts, alleging a conspiracy to destroy its business.

The motions judge granted partial summary judgment dismissing most claims, holding that under the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, Meditrust could not sue for damages that were derivative of those suffered by its subsidiaries.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision on all grounds except for Meditrust's claim for loss of goodwill, finding that damage to reputation could constitute a direct, personal loss to the shareholder.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate disposition of costs.

The court awarded costs only to the respondent Guardian, Wasserman Arsenault, denying costs to the Superintendent of Bankruptcy because its role was minor and duplicative.

The court rejected the respondents' request for full indemnity based on their low negotiated hourly rates, fixing costs on a partial indemnity scale at $30,000 all inclusive.

The costs were apportioned 75% against the appellant Rumanek & Cooper and 25% against the appellant C.I.B.C., based on the number and complexity of the issues relating to each.

The individual applicants were arrested at a political protest and transferred to a detention centre where they were strip searched.

They filed complaints of police misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The Chief of Police dismissed the complaints as unsubstantiated, and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services confirmed this decision.

The Divisional Court quashed the Commission's decision, finding it patently unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's ruling, concluding that the Chief and the Commission applied the wrong evidentiary standard ("clear and convincing evidence" instead of whether the conduct "may" constitute misconduct) and failed to consider whether the applicants' Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated.

The Court of Appeal declared the applicants entitled to a hearing by a different police force.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Finding the hours sought by the successful party to be excessive, the court fixed costs at $12,500, payable without delay.

The respondent's dairy barn and livestock were destroyed in a fire.

The appellant insurer paid over $1.17 million under the policy but disputed other aspects of the claim, including loss of livestock, loss of earnings, and damage to silos.

At trial, the jury awarded the respondent an additional $488,389 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages for the insurer's breach of its duty of good faith.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the punitive damages award.

The Court held that while the insurer breached its duty to act fairly and in good faith by failing to promptly pay amounts it reasonably believed were owing, its conduct was not so outrageous or extreme as to warrant punishment.

The plaintiff wrote a negative book review of the defendant's novel.

The defendant responded with an allegedly defamatory letter sent by email to the magazine's editors, which was published in print and online.

The defendant also faxed the letter to two other newspapers, which did not publish it.

The plaintiff sued for libel but failed to serve notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendant could rely on the notice provision for the print and online magazine publications, as the online version constituted a 'newspaper'.

However, the faxes and the original email to the editors were separate publications not in a newspaper, so the action could proceed regarding those specific transmissions.

Following an appeal decision, the appellant requested that the court direct a reference to the Master to resolve an ongoing dispute concerning the quantification of fees and potential damages for an invalid suspension.

The Court of Appeal declined to direct a reference or a trial of an issue, finding merit in allowing the parties to state the dispute in their own terms and leaving it to them to commence whatever action they see fit.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their crossclaim against the respondent trailer manufacturer following a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The jury found the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the appellant driver and transport company.

On appeal, the appellants argued the verdict was unreasonable and challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of a deceased driver's statement and log book entries, and the exclusion of coroner's inquest findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was amply supported by the evidence and the trial judge made no errors in his evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The parties agreed on the disposition of costs following an appeal and cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay costs to the respondent, Commercial Union Life Assurance Company of Canada.

Specifically, Steven Michael Overgaard was ordered to pay $25,000, JIIG Holdings Inc. was ordered to pay $20,000 for abandoned grounds of appeal, and MHI Brokers Ltd., JIIG Holdings Inc., and Steven Michael Overgaard were ordered to jointly and severally pay $5,000 for the cross-appeal.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of his mother, aunt, and cousin.

At trial, he denied involvement, but his counsel advanced a defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder.

The Crown called reply evidence from psychiatrists who had assessed the appellant under court order.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of the psychiatric assessment provisions, the jury instructions on the sequence of considering the NCR defence, the Crown's closing address, and the admission of evidence from a warrantless police entry into his apartment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the constitutional challenge could not be raised for the first time on appeal due to a tactical decision at trial, the jury instructions did not constitute reversible error, and the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference and sought leave to appeal his sentence of two years less a day.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting similar act evidence, failing to resolve an alleged recantation by a witness, and failing to properly consider collusion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the admission of the similar act evidence and noting the verdict was amply supported by the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant was in a position of trust, the abuse occurred over six years, and he had a prior criminal record.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, assault with a weapon, threatening death, unlawful confinement, and breach of undertaking, as well as his designation as a long-term offender.

The offences were committed against his wife over an eight-day period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence and the verdict was not unreasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the long-term offender designation was well founded on evidence of a pattern of spousal abuse and a substantial risk of re-offending.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference against his step-daughter.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on reasonable doubt and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of post-trial statements by the complainant and her mother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury instructions complied with W.(D.) and Lifchus, and the proposed fresh evidence was not credible, reliable, or capable of affecting the verdict.

The appellant brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence and to amend his statement of claim on appeal.

The court granted both requests, finding that the interests of justice favoured admitting the evidence, which had been read to the motions judge but not marked as an exhibit.

The court also permitted the amendment to the statement of claim, which effectively withdrew an admission, and imposed terms to address any prejudice to the respondents.

The appellants pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death, abandoning children, and fraud after leaving their five children in the care of a 10-year-old, during which time their six-month-old infant choked to death.

On appeal, they sought to introduce fresh evidence claiming they had left the children with an adult relative, which the court rejected as not reasonably capable of belief.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the guilty pleas were properly accepted.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal on a joint submission, finding the sentencing judge erred in holding that a conditional sentence was unavailable for fraud involving a breach of trust, and imposed a nine-month conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence of eight years for assault causing bodily harm, robbery, extortion, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, and theft over.

The charges arose from a vicious beating and robbery where the appellant was identified by eyewitnesses and ATM surveillance footage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to exclude the appellant's criminal record under Corbett, the admission of evidence regarding a child witness's identification, or the handling of a Crown interruption during closing arguments.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the disparity between the appellant's sentence and his co-accused's was justified by the appellant's role as the instigator and his prior record.

The appeal concerning Grove Packaging Inc. was dismissed on consent on a without costs basis.

The appellant employer appealed a Divisional Court decision quashing a Referee's ruling that the respondent employee's claim for severance pay under the Employment Standards Act was statute-barred.

The employee had delayed filing his claim because the employer falsely represented in his termination letter that his early pension option exceeded provincial requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Referee's interpretation of the limitation period and refusal to apply the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to be unreasonable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that their company held insurance premiums in trust for the respondent insurer and that the individual appellant, as the directing mind of the company, was personally liable for knowing assistance in a breach of trust for withholding those premiums.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that a statutory trust existed under s. 402(1) of the Insurance Act, which applies to both licensed and unlicensed agents, and that an express trust existed at common law.

The Court also affirmed that the individual appellant was personally liable because he directed the company to take a knowingly wrongful risk to the prejudice of the insurer.