Karen M. Weiler

The appellant pled guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation after attacking a man with a tire iron who intervened when the appellant approached his ex-wife.

He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment less pre-trial custody.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by treating a lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and by finding a high risk to reoffend without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge merely rejected remorse as a mitigating factor and reasonably inferred a high risk of reoffending from the appellant's escalating aggressive conduct.

The Crown appealed a 14-month conditional sentence imposed for aggravated assault.

The respondent conceded that a conditional sentence was not legally available for this offence.

The Court of Appeal agreed that a sentence of incarceration was appropriate but, noting the respondent had already served 11 months of the sentence, his strong rehabilitative potential, and Gladue principles, varied the sentence to 11 months' time served plus 12 months' probation.

The appellant pled guilty to possession of stolen property after purchasing six tractor trailer loads of stolen commercial goods worth $500,000.

He was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and three years' probation.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by overemphasizing general deterrence and failing to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding the sentence was within the appropriate range given the magnitude of the crime and the motivation of greed.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in declining to impose a conditional sentence and seeking to introduce fresh evidence of his rehabilitative efforts while on bail.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the sentencing judge adequately considered the appellant's family circumstances and the nature of his crimes.

The fresh evidence was deemed an extension of what was expected at sentencing and did not change the outcome.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to nine years globally, with a net sentence of seven years after credit for pre-trial custody.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in his treatment of mitigating factors and in failing to provide 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the treatment of mitigating factors but concluded the sentencing judge made a mathematical or principled error by failing to apply the intended 2:1 credit.

The appeal was allowed and the net sentence was varied to five and a half years.

The self-represented appellants appealed an order striking their amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleading contained overly broad, conclusory allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and negligence without supporting material facts.

The Court also noted that many allegations were attempts to re-litigate previously determined issues, and the defects could not be cured by further amendment.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 12 months' incarceration and two years' probation for multiple offences, including forcible entry, assault causing bodily harm, and uttering death threats.

He argued the sentence was harsh, failed to adequately apply the Gladue analysis, and violated the jump principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge's application of Gladue or the jump principle, and concluding the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and theft after hijacking a tractor-trailer of frozen chickens and shooting the driver.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cell phone propagation maps and test calls, and in his jury instructions regarding the W. (D.) framework and the distinction between disbelief and fabrication of an exculpatory statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the evidentiary rulings or the jury instructions.

The appellant challenged the validity of a municipal election in Ward 9 of the City of Toronto, arguing that 275 Voters' List Change Request Forms (VLCRFs) were invalid because they lacked an election official's signature.

The application judge declared the election invalid, but the Divisional Court overturned this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, applying the substantive approach from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Opitz.

The Court held that the omission of the election official's signature was a procedural irregularity that did not compromise the voters' underlying entitlement to vote, and therefore did not affect the result of the election.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion to extend the time to appeal, the responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the moving party's failure to comply with disclosure obligations was unjustified, it did not amount to reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,044.36.

The appellant orthopaedic surgeon appealed a trial judgment finding him negligent in his post-operative treatment of the respondent's fractured femur.

The trial judge found the appellant breached the standard of care by scheduling a follow-up appointment six weeks later instead of monitoring the patient closely, which led to the femur healing in a deformed position requiring invasive surgery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on standard of care, causation, and the assessment of damages for future loss of income.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment for sexual assault and incest, arguing the sentencing judge erred by only granting 1:1 credit for pretrial custody spent in administrative segregation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly exercised his discretion by weighing the harsh conditions against other factors, including the appellant's outstanding charges, breach of bail, and significant criminal record.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his wife, arguing a lack of motive, improper jury instructions, and insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's instructions to the jury.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable based on the totality of the evidence, which included the appellant arriving at the home dressed as a construction worker, bringing a knife, and attempting to kill an eyewitness by stabbing her 13 times.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to amend their statement of claim to add a proposed defendant and change the location of a slip and fall accident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim against the proposed defendant was statute-barred, as the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court also agreed that the doctrine of misnomer did not apply because the intended defendant did not know it was the target of the suit.

However, the Court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to change the location of the accident as against the existing defendant.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a 2009 finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) to which she had consented.

She argued the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence did not establish she failed to appreciate the nature and quality of her acts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the applicant failed to adequately explain the nearly four-year delay and that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as there was sufficient evidence from the psychiatric assessment and surrounding circumstances to support the NCRMD finding.

The moving parties (defendants) sought an extension of time to appeal an order that struck their statement of defence for failing to comply with disclosure obligations and a costs order.

The court applied the Kefeli test for extending time to appeal.

While the moving parties had an intention to appeal and a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the court found that the appeal lacked merit, the responding party would suffer prejudice due to ongoing delays and deterioration of partnership property, and the justice of the case did not favour an extension.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that the respondent tenant's property taxes should be calculated on a proportionate share basis.

The lease provided that if separate assessments were unavailable, the parties must use reasonable efforts to obtain sufficient official information to determine what the separate assessment would have been.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) valuation records constituted sufficient official information for this purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, acting in person, brought a motion to remove the solicitors of record for the respondents on the appeal, alleging conflict of interest and misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the serious allegations.

The court emphasized the importance of a litigant's right to counsel of choice and noted that removing counsel would cause prejudice to the respondents, who relied on their counsel's ability to communicate in Farsi.

The appellant tripped and fell on a hole in an asphalt walkway on the grounds of a public school during the summer.

A jury found that the respondent school board had not breached its duty under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act and that the appellant was responsible for her injuries.

The appellant appealed, arguing the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was a basis on the record for the jury to conclude the respondent had taken reasonable care, given its system of maintenance and the reduced use of the school yard during the summer.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and incest, arguing the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to call reply evidence regarding the timing of a pizza order.

The appellant claimed this was a collateral issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence was helpful in resolving an essential issue in the case, as it supported the complainant's timeline and undermined the appellant's evidence regarding his whereabouts prior to the assault.