Karen M. Weiler

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that the crash of his twin-engine airplane was not an 'accident' under his insurance policy.

The trial judge had concluded the crash was not an accident because the appellant attempted to take off with only one engine engaged, yet also found he did not know he was running an extraordinary risk.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were unclear as to whether the appellant was reckless or merely negligent, and found she did not apply the correct standard.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's claim for $8.9 million in unfunded transit liabilities as statute-barred.

The dispute arose from a by-law transferring transit responsibilities from the appellant to the respondent, which required the parties to negotiate the allocation of unfunded liabilities.

The Court of Appeal held that the limitation period did not begin to run until the appellant's municipal council passed a formal resolution denying responsibility and refusing to arbitrate, as the by-law imposed an ongoing obligation to negotiate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of attempting to live off the avails of prostitution of a person under 18 and aiding the complainant to engage in prostitution.

At trial, the Crown introduced extensive evidence of extrinsic misconduct, including text messages, online advertisements, and provocative photographs found on the appellant's computer and cell phones, which were not directly connected to the complainant.

The trial judge failed to provide a limiting instruction to the jury warning against propensity reasoning.

The Court of Appeal held that this failure was a reversible error, as there was a real risk the jury would use the evidence to conclude the appellant was a bad person likely to have committed the offences.

The curative proviso was not applied, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding he had no standing.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the appellant was not bound by the Site Plan Agreement, a conclusion also agreed to by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The appellants appealed an order that included a final declaration regarding the applicability of the Repair and Storage Liens Act, which was made during an interlocutory motion.

The Court of Appeal found that the declaration was not intended to be a final determination and deprived the appellants of a substantive defence at a preliminary stage.

Despite procedural errors by the appellants, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration in the interest of justice, but awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's careful and clear analysis of the issues.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim, which was found to be commenced outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

He argued the motions judge erred by not finding the limitation period was tolled due to fraudulent concealment by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motions judge that there was no basis in the evidence for the fraudulent concealment claim, as the lack of disclosure was immaterial and the appellant was a party to the telephone call he alleged was concealed.

The appellant, who had been detained in psychiatric facilities since 1984, appealed a Superior Court decision upholding a Consent and Capacity Board finding that he was incapable of consenting to treatment with anti-psychotic medication.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellant was transferred to a new facility where his new treatment team implemented a successful non-pharmacological treatment program.

As no anti-psychotic medication was being proposed or anticipated, the amicus curiae suggested the appeal was moot.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting the appellant would suffer no prejudice as the statutory six-month bar for a new review application had expired, and a material change in circumstances would justify leave for a new application regardless.

The appeal was quashed as moot.

The appellants sought to certify a class action against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation on behalf of problem gamblers who had signed self-exclusion forms but were subsequently permitted to enter gambling venues and suffered losses.

The action alleged breach of contract, negligence, and occupiers' liability.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions denying certification, finding that the claims required highly individualized inquiries into each class member's vulnerability, gambling history, and personal autonomy.

The court concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure as the common issues would not significantly advance the litigation.

The appellant, a former federal cabinet minister, sued the prime minister, his staff, and other officials for defamation, conspiracy, and other torts after she was removed from Cabinet and the Conservative Party caucus amid allegations of misconduct.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding the claims non-justiciable due to Crown prerogative and parliamentary privilege, and that the alleged defamatory statements were either not capable of being defamatory or were protected by absolute privilege.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claims against all defendants except one Member of Parliament, finding her public statements had a possible defamatory meaning that should be determined at trial.

The appellant tenants suffered $7,000,000 in water damage after a vandal opened a fire hose in an area used by the respondent independent contractor.

The tenants sued the contractor for negligence.

The contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing it was protected by a waiver of subrogation clause in the commercial lease between the tenants and the landlord, which extended to those for whom the landlord was 'in law responsible'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the landlord was in law responsible for the contractor due to an indemnity provision in the lease, and that the contractor met the Fraser River test to benefit from the clause as a third party.

The appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography after police executed a search warrant at his home.

On appeal, he challenged the validity of the Information to Obtain (ITO) and the reasonableness of the 'no-knock' entry by heavily armed tactical officers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the ITO contained sufficient reliable information based on the use of a peer-to-peer network tracking tool.

The Court also held that the unannounced entry was justified by the ease with which digital evidence could be destroyed, and the overall manner of the search did not violate section 8 of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle (a farm tractor).

He argued he was denied an adjournment at the Summary Conviction Appeal Court and that the trial judge erred by finding dangerous driving without expert evidence on tractor operation and by inferring danger from the accident itself.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal due to a misunderstanding about procedure but dismissed the appeal.

The Court found ample evidence of dangerous driving, including ignoring police officers and driving erratically, and held that expert evidence was not required as the risks were plain and obvious.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge made a mathematical error in calculating pre-sentence custody credit (dead time).

The Crown agreed with the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and substituted a sentence of 14 months and 3 days.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife.

At trial, both parties testified to engaging in dominant/submissive sexual role playing, but gave conflicting accounts of the night in question.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding the complainant more credible.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by approaching the case as a credibility contest, making key findings of fact on a balance of probabilities, and failing to consider whether the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the hospital report contained falsehoods.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the disposition was well-founded on the evidence and that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an order making his two biological children Crown wards with no access.

The appeal was dismissed for delay at a status hearing when the appellant failed to appear.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the appellant argued the notice of the status hearing did not adequately warn that the appeal could be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed the notice was deficient but dismissed the appeal, finding no appealable error in the underlying wardship decision and concluding no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after being arrested with four kilograms of cocaine.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to issue a material witness warrant for a person he believed was the confidential informant who tipped off the police.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was no evidence the proposed witness was a state agent or would provide material evidence on the issue of entrapment.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for failing to comply with a probation order and uttering threats, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by evidence of the appellant's delusional disorder, lack of insight, and continued threat to the community.

The fresh evidence would not have affected the outcome.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant lacked sufficient reliable information from confidential informants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if some information was excised, the ITO as a whole provided a sufficient basis for the warrant to issue due to independent corroboration of the informants' tips regarding the location and the individuals involved in drug trafficking.

As the warrant was valid, the court did not need to address the appellant's arguments under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.