Karen M. Weiler

The appellant, a franchisor, obtained foreign default judgments against the respondent franchisees after terminating their franchise agreements and seizing their assets without accounting for the value of the seized inventory.

The appellant then filed petitions in bankruptcy in Ontario based on the foreign judgments.

The trial judge dismissed the petitions under s. 43(7) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, finding that the appellant's attempt to obtain double recovery by failing to account for the seized assets constituted 'sufficient cause' to deny the petitions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to dismiss the petitions due to the appellant's unconscionable conduct.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded the respondents their costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $13,099.75 inclusive of disbursements and GST, having regard to their success on appeal, the complexity of the issues, and their Bill of Costs.

The appellant cohabited with the deceased for 18 months before he was killed in a motor vehicle accident.

She sued the driver for damages under s. 61 of the Family Law Act.

The definition of "spouse" in s. 29 of the Act requires three years of cohabitation.

The appellant challenged this definition under s. 15(1) of the Charter, arguing it discriminates against common-law partners who have cohabited for less than three years.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of her claim, finding that cohabiting for less than three years is not an analogous ground of discrimination under s. 15(1) of the Charter, as it is a fluid and transitory status rather than an immutable characteristic.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder.

At trial, the Crown relied heavily on the testimony of a jailhouse informant.

The trial judge gave a Vetrovec warning but erred by providing the jury with examples of potentially confirmatory evidence that were not capable of confirming the informant's testimony.

The trial judge also erred by allowing the Crown to introduce highly prejudicial investigative hearsay evidence regarding the appellant's antecedents, including alleged ties to terrorism and the drug trade, to rebut a defence claim of an inadequate police investigation.

The Court of Appeal found that both errors deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 18 months' notice for wrongful dismissal, damages for mental distress, punitive damages, and solicitor-and-client costs.

The employee had suffered a workplace injury and was persistently harassed by the employer to return to work, causing her severe emotional distress and physical illness.

The Court of Appeal reduced the notice period to 12 months and set aside the punitive damages and costs awards.

However, the Court upheld the $15,000 award for mental distress, finding that the employer's extreme and insensitive harassment constituted the independent tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering.

In a postscript endorsement regarding costs, the Court of Appeal assessed the successful respondent's costs at $13,661, agreeing with the appellant's submissions.

The Minister of Health failed to submit their bill of costs in a timely manner despite requests, prompting the court to arbitrarily assess their costs at $4,000 inclusive of GST, noting that the court cannot function based on the time convenience of counsel.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent on the basis of a 21-month delay violating her s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The respondent was charged with aggravated assault and failing to provide the necessaries of life after her infant child suffered multiple fractures.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in calculating the delay attributable to the Crown and overemphasized the prejudice suffered by the respondent.

The stay was set aside and the matter remitted for trial, with Feldman J.A. dissenting.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for payment for installing a subsurface drainage system and awarding damages on the respondent's counterclaim for crop losses due to improper drainage.

The trial judge found the system inadequate due to soil conditions, the filter used, and installation in wet conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The Court also upheld the damages award, noting the limitation of liability clause was not incorporated into the agreement or pleaded.

The Ontario Teachers' Federation (OTF) appealed a decision declaring its By-law X invalid.

By-law X required its affiliates, including the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF), to collect and remit membership fees to OTF, and allowed OTF to suspend an affiliate for default.

The OSSTF had withheld a portion of the fees designated for the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

The Court of Appeal held that sections 1-5 of By-law X, which established the fee collection mechanism, were validly enacted under the Corporations Act as a matter of internal management.

However, section 6, which permitted the suspension of an affiliate, was ultra vires because it interfered with the OSSTF's statutorily protected role within the OTF.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third step of the W.D. framework by not fully assessing and reconciling the evidence of the police officers after rejecting the appellant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge gave full reasons, properly articulated his application of W.D., and made clear findings of fact based on the accepted and reliable evidence of the police.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the argument that breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

However, the Court agreed that the trial judge erred by considering the appellant's roadside statements when assessing his credibility regarding 'evidence to the contrary'.

Finding the curative proviso inapplicable, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant and his co-accused were charged with the second degree murder of their 14-month-old child.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the co-accused was committed for trial and the appellant was discharged.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari to quash the discharge and commit the appellant to trial.

The appellant appealed the certiorari order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the preliminary inquiry justice must have engaged in impermissible weighing of evidence, thereby committing jurisdictional error.

The appellant appealed his conviction on four counts of indecent assault and sought leave to appeal his 18-month sentence.

The appeal on conviction was based on the trial judge's charge to the jury regarding credibility, identity, and reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the jury charge and dismissed the conviction appeal.

On the sentence appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in principle by stating inadequate supervision made a conditional sentence inappropriate, but ultimately held that an 18-month custodial sentence was fit given the nature of the historical offences against a young child.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder after shooting the victim in the back of the head outside a courthouse.

At trial, the appellant claimed he acted in self-defence, fearing the victim would attack him due to previous gang-related shootings.

The trial judge refused to leave self-defence to the jury and excluded expert psychological evidence regarding post-traumatic stress disorder.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no air of reality to the defence of self-defence because there was no evidence of an imminent or reasonably apprehended attack at the time of the shooting.

The court also upheld the exclusion of the expert evidence and dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming the 8-year imprisonment term.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the calculation of his net family property and the order for retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the deduction of disposition costs from the Cyprus properties, finding the trial judge correctly addressed the issue reserved by the parties' consent.

The Court upheld the imputation of $50,000 in income due to the appellant's failure to make full financial disclosure and lack of medical evidence of disability.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by varying the start date for retroactive support from the date of separation to the date the Answer and Counterpetition was issued, reducing the arrears accordingly.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for injuries sustained in a horse-related accident.

The appellants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding whether the appellant intentionally held onto the lead shank due to the premises' condition, and whether the horse owners had prior knowledge of the horse's dangerousness.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's affidavit and evidence of the horse's breed and prior incidents created genuine issues for trial.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's self-serving affidavit and hearsay evidence insufficient to survive summary judgment.

The minor respondent was injured in Florida when his tricycle collided with a school bus.

The respondents settled their Florida action for the maximum amount recoverable under Florida's sovereign immunity legislation.

They then sought indemnification from their Ontario insurer under the S.E.F. 44 Family Protection Endorsement for the shortfall.

The insurer appealed a motion judge's finding that the minor respondent had a cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the minor respondent was 'legally entitled to recover' damages despite the Florida statutory cap, and that the tortfeasors were 'inadequately insured' because their excess insurance was unavailable to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal in a bankruptcy proceeding.

After receiving submissions from the parties, the court fixed costs in favour of the respondent trustee in bankruptcy at $10,000 and in favour of the respondent creditor at $2,000, both inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding that their insurer, Royal & SunAlliance, had no duty to defend claims against them arising from a sexual assault committed by an employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the abuse and harassment exclusion clause clearly excluded liability for the sexual assault.

The court rejected the application of the concurrent cause analysis, finding that the negligent supervision claims were subsumed into the intentional tort claim and derived from the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.