Karen M. Weiler

The parties cohabited for eight years.

At trial, the applicant was awarded time-limited spousal support and a $100,000 equitable trust interest in the respondent's home.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal varied the spousal support to an indeterminate duration, noting the applicant's age and disability.

The Court upheld the $100,000 trust interest, rejecting the applicant's new argument for a joint family venture, but granted pre-judgment interest and a charge on the property as security.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding support quantum, costs, and financial reconciliation was dismissed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan.

The defendant delayed bringing a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction until after the Michigan limitation period had expired.

The motion judge dismissed the defendant's motion, relying on the forum of necessity exception to the real and substantial connection test, citing fairness and access to justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, finding that the motion judge did not err in exercising his residual discretion to assume jurisdiction given the unique circumstances, including the defendant's delay and changes in the law regarding jurisdiction that occurred after the action was commenced.

The appellants purchased a house and later discovered structural problems.

They sued the vendors and others, and later sought to add the designers as defendants.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against the designers as statute-barred, finding the appellants ought to have known of the dangerous defects earlier.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, holding that the motion judge erred in law by ignoring uncontested sworn evidence from the appellants' former counsel regarding when the dangerous nature of the defects was discovered.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that ordered her to pay an equalization payment and denied her request for lump sum child support.

The respondent had refused to disclose his net worth, failed to pay child support, and disappeared prior to trial.

The Court of Appeal set aside the equalization payment and, admitting fresh actuarial evidence, awarded lump sum child support.

To satisfy the respondent's support and other obligations, the Court ordered his equity in the jointly owned matrimonial home to be vested in the appellant.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to appoint her as estate trustee during litigation to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty owed to their late mother.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, agreeing that the appellant would be in a conflict of interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the motion judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay full indemnity costs, and reduced the award to partial indemnity costs.

The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sought an adjournment, which was refused.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, noting that although the original Superior Court action claimed a higher amount, it was settled together with a small claims court action for a global amount within the jurisdiction of the small claims court.

Therefore, any appeal lies to the Divisional Court.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, a deaf individual with limited communication skills, was involuntarily committed under the Mental Health Act and detained in a maximum security psychiatric facility for 19 years.

He challenged the constitutionality of the involuntary committal provisions under s. 7 of the Charter and alleged a violation of his s. 15(1) equality rights due to inadequate sign language interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Mental Health Act violates s. 7 when applied to long-term detainees because the Consent and Capacity Board lacks the authority to ensure that liberty is restricted no more than necessary.

The Court also found a violation of s. 15(1) due to the systemic failure to provide adequate interpretation services.

The Court severed the words 'or subsequent' from s. 20(4)(b)(iii) of the Act, suspending the declaration of invalidity for 12 months, and granted a declaration of the appellant's equality rights.

The appellant, a lawyer, sued the Law Society of Upper Canada and its investigator for defamation based on emails sent to victim institutions during an investigation into mortgage fraud.

The motion judge dismissed the action on summary judgment, finding the communications were protected by absolute privilege.

On appeal, the appellant argued that section 9 of the Law Society Act superseded the common law defence of absolute privilege and that the privilege did not apply in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 9 supplements rather than ousts the common law, and that the investigator's communications were protected by absolute privilege as they were made in connection with a disciplinary proceeding.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a previous order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting the appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance despite being given ample opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Court left open the possibility for the appellant to seek an indulgence to reopen pleadings if he demonstrates substantial compliance in the future.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages against the City for groundwater contamination caused by road salt, which allegedly prevented the development of a medical office building with underground parking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence that it actually intended to build such a development and subsequently excluded the appellant's expert evidence, which was based on that rejected factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, or costs award.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and making and possessing child pornography in relation to his nieces.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, improperly used similar fact evidence, reversed the burden of proof, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons adequate, the similar fact evidence properly admitted, and no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or burden of proof.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for second degree murder and assault with a weapon, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had upheld restrictions on his liberty and imposed a hybrid disposition, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety due to aggressive behaviour and non-compliance with medication.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge under s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and that the hybrid disposition was the least restrictive and appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned without costs.

The appellant sued her former solicitors in professional negligence.

The firm successfully brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, the retainer dispute was not res judicata, and the motions judge erred in dismissing the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, that the fee dispute was settled and res judicata, and that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the alleged negligence caused her damages.

No costs were awarded due to the appellant's impecuniosity.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5:1.

Following a review of the sentencing transcript, it was revealed that the original joint submission did not account for the appellant's lost eligibility for early release.

Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Summers, the Crown conceded that the appellant was entitled to the enhanced credit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted the appellant 806 days of pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant husband appealed an order enforcing a separation agreement and child support arrears.

He argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment and in enforcing the agreement due to an alleged power imbalance, emotional stress, and ambiguity regarding child support for his stepchildren.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The court also held that ambiguity in the support clause and the appellant's emotional stress were not grounds to invalidate the entire agreement.

The appellant appealed his conviction for forgery-related offences concerning a forged consent to set aside a vexatious litigant order.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to stay the proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that, after attributing 19 months of the delay to the appellant and finding no actual prejudice, a stay was not warranted.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant forged and presented the consent document.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, assault, intimidation, and uttering death threats following an altercation with his girlfriend's landlord and the building caretaker.

He appealed only the criminal harassment conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider all necessary elements of the offence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant's conduct was harassing, that he possessed the requisite mens rea, and that the elderly complainant's fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendant in Belgium and subsequently sought to enforce it in Ontario after discovering the defendant had moved to Canada.

After the plaintiffs obtained summary judgment recognizing the foreign judgment, the defendant appealed, triggering an automatic stay of enforcement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to lift the stay and for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal partially lifted the stay to allow the plaintiffs to examine the defendant in aid of execution, finding the appeal appeared frivolous and the plaintiffs had suffered hardship due to delay.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence that the defendant lacked assets in Ontario.