Karen M. Weiler

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellant regarding an order granting the media access to a video exhibit from the appellant's concluded bail hearing.

The moving party argued the matter was criminal in nature, meaning jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that because the criminal proceedings were fully concluded and the order did not affect any ongoing criminal matter or the appellant's fair trial rights, the proceeding was civil in nature and properly appealed to the Court of Appeal under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order to the United States on charges relating to a massive telemarketing fraud scheme.

He argued the extradition judge lacked jurisdiction because a photocopy of the Authority to Proceed was filed, that the evidence was insufficient for fraud over $5,000, and that the surrender order improperly included a conspiracy charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, finding that the Extradition Act does not require an original Authority to Proceed, the evidence of the $7 million fraud scheme was sufficient for committal, and the double criminality principle does not require matching the foreign offence to the Canadian corresponding offence.

The parties reached a settlement in the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered that the matter be resolved according to the draft order filed.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the guardianship of the respondent.

The motion judge had mistakenly treated a motion for a time-limited appointment to obtain medical assessments as an application for permanent guardianship, believing he lacked the power to grant the former.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, noting the judge had the necessary power under s. 58(2)(a) of the Substitute Decisions Act.

The parties agreed to mediate the matter.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, as well as his sentence, following a domestic incident where he struck his spouse with a shovel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal grounds relating to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter and the application of the W. (D.) test for credibility.

However, the court agreed that the Kienapple principle applied, staying the conviction for assault with a weapon as it arose from the same delict.

The sentence appeal was dismissed, with the court finding the custodial sentence reasonable given the severity of the spousal abuse.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision to invoke Rule 52.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to overturn a jury's finding of negligence against the respondent doctor.

The jury had found that the respondent's delay in transferring the appellant to another facility caused his paraplegia.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that while the respondent breached the standard of care by delaying the transfer, the appellants failed to adduce any expert evidence proving that an earlier transfer would have resulted in a timely diagnosis and surgery to prevent the paralysis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding Oren Nirenberg personally liable for inducing Zurich Insurance to breach its contract with the respondent.

The parties had a joint venture to share commissions from group insurance policies sold to Seneca College employees.

Nirenberg directed Zurich to forward all commissions to his company instead of the respondent, which Zurich did.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that Zurich's failure to pay the respondent was a breach of contract, and Nirenberg intentionally induced that breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims against the Crown.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the claims even if they were not statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The Court noted that the section 15 Charter claim was too vague and lacked evidence to permit meaningful analysis.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondent, though the Crown undertook not to enforce the order due to the appellant's financial circumstances.

HSBC Bank Canada brought a motion for an order that Jack Lechcier-Kimel requires leave to appeal an order adding HSBC as a creditor in his bankruptcy application.

Lechcier-Kimel brought a cross-motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that leave is required because adding a party does not involve future rights under s. 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The court further held that a single judge has jurisdiction to grant leave.

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds of appeal lacked prima facie merit.

The appellant appealed his conviction under s. 95(2) of the Criminal Code.

Based on fresh evidence, the Crown conceded the conviction could not stand, but the appellant agreed he was guilty of the lesser included offence of unauthorized possession of a firearm.

The Court of Appeal substituted a conviction for the lesser included offence and dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence remained fit.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing that his continued detention after a lawful traffic stop was arbitrary under s. 9 of the Charter, and that the breathalyzer technician's observations of his impairment should have been excluded under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the initial detention was lawful under s. 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and the continued detention was justified to investigate his dangerous driving.

The court held that the technician's observations were not conscriptive evidence and did not arise from a Charter violation.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in her Vetrovec warning to the jury regarding a 'mixed witness' who gave evidence favourable to both the Crown and the defence.

The appellant contended that the trial judge should not have directed the jury to look for confirmatory evidence of the exculpatory portions of the witness's testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made it clear the jury could accept the testimony without confirmatory evidence.

The Court noted that the instruction was fair to the appellant, as it did not repeat strong inculpatory evidence and provided a path to accept the exculpatory evidence without confirmation.

Furthermore, defence counsel did not object to the charge at trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats, against three former partners.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, quashing the convictions relating to one complainant because the trial judge improperly relied on prior consistent statements that were not in evidence to bolster her credibility.

The convictions relating to the other two complainants were upheld.

The Court granted leave to appeal the sentences on the remaining counts, varying them to run consecutively rather than concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 32 months.

The appellant, an Ontario-based domain name registrar, commenced an action for a declaration that it owned the domain name renner.com and had not registered it in bad faith, after the respondent initiated a WIPO dispute resolution proceeding.

The motion judge set aside service ex juris and stayed the action, finding that a domain name was not personal property located in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a domain name is intangible personal property and that the domain name in question was located in Ontario.

The Court found that the appellant's claim for declaratory relief fell within Rule 17.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection with Ontario that the respondent failed to rebut.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion to stay the respondents' action based on an exclusive forum selection clause in their agreements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the clause applied, the respondents had shown 'strong cause' not to enforce it.

The court noted the appellant's delay in raising the jurisdictional issue, its inconsistent positions, and the risk of inconsistent verdicts between Canada and the United States.

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs for both the trial and the appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded substantial indemnity costs for the trial from the date of the appellants' first Rule 49 offer, noting that the respondents' self-represented status was not a reason to deny such costs.

However, the court reduced the requested amount to ensure proportionality with the amount in issue, fixing trial costs at $30,000 and appeal costs at $15,000.

The appellant challenged convictions for multiple historical sexual offences against several boys, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to Crown and defence witnesses, relied on material not in evidence, and thereby rendered the trial unfair.

The court held that any errors were minor, not material to the reasoning process, and did not undermine trial fairness or the convictions.

The court also rejected challenges to the dismissal of stay applications based on destroyed police records and alleged abuse of process arising from the earlier investigation.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the five-year global sentence was upheld as fit notwithstanding one conceded sentencing error.

The court further ordered sex offender registration under SOIRA.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of the respondents on charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge had excluded the evidence obtained from a search warrant, finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) was carelessly drafted, materially misleading, and factually incomplete, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to apply the proper test of whether a sufficient basis remained to issue the warrant after excising any offending portions.

The Court also held that even if there was a breach, the evidence should not have been excluded under s. 24(2) given the respondents' reduced expectation of privacy in the premises.

The appellant tenant was evicted and his belongings disposed of while he was out of the country, due to a rent arrears dispute arising from a prematurely deposited post-dated cheque.

After the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) upheld the eviction and found no illegal conduct by the landlords, the appellant sued the landlords in Superior Court for damages.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as an abuse of process because the issues had already been decided by the LTB.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the LTB had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter and the proper route was to appeal the LTB decision to the Divisional Court.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment regarding $89,500 they advanced to the respondents, directly and through their son, who was the respondents' lawyer.

The trial judge had found no loan agreement existed between the parties and excluded key documents citing solicitor-client privilege.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in excluding the documents, as they related to requests for personal living expenses and not legal advice.

The Court found the documentary evidence clearly established loan contracts for $78,500 of the funds.

The appeal was allowed, judgment was granted for $78,500 plus interest, and the remaining $11,000 claim was remitted for a new trial.