Karen M. Weiler

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences and aggravated assault following an unprovoked shooting in a parking lot after a basketball game.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to frailties in the eyewitness identification evidence and that the trial judge improperly handled jury questions.

He also appealed his 8-year sentence, arguing it was unfit given his youth.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the eyewitness evidence was reliable, the trial judge appropriately addressed the jury's questions, and the sentence was fit given the gravity of the offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions on six counts of sexual assault against a child complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his application to introduce evidence of the complainant's prior allegations against another individual without holding a hearing, and that Crown counsel's comments during the trial rendered it unfair.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding the evidentiary application and concluding that the Crown's comments did not result in trial unfairness.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, assault, forcible confinement, and uttering threats against his common law partner, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that trial counsel failed to properly execute an effective cross-examination, failed to cross-examine the complainant on prior inconsistent statements, and effectively abandoned the defence in closing submissions.

Concluding that these failures undermined the reliability of the verdict and the appearance of a fair trial, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his knowledge of drugs found in a bedroom closet and misapplied the doctrine of wilful blindness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge was entitled to infer the appellant had seen the drugs and cash in the closet of the room he occupied in a house he owned.

The court held that the only available inference was that the appellant knew what was in the jar or was wilfully blind to it, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that a cottage he received from his father was a matrimonial home, valuing motorcycles at $27,000, and awarding substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding abundant evidence supported the trial judge's conclusion that the cottage was used regularly by the family and served as collateral for the primary home.

The court also found no error in the valuation of the motorcycles or the costs award.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for mischief under $5,000.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal were weak, the legal issues lacked broader significance, and the appellant faced no deprivation of liberty as his probation had expired and he was discharged.

The appellant pleaded guilty to multiple charges relating to residential break and enters with a sexual element and was declared a long-term offender.

He appealed the trial judge's calculation of his parole ineligibility period.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred by including pre-sentence custody and an unlisted offence in the calculation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the period of parole ineligibility to 6 years and 9 months.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety due to his history of violence, mental illness, and limited insight.

The Court found the Board reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge could not sufficiently manage the risk of decompensation and that detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge erred in dismissing the theory of an alternate suspect.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting that the complainant's testimony was corroborated by circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's DNA on a rock covered in the complainant's blood and on a discarded shirt.

The court found the trial judge made no errors in assessing the evidence or rejecting the alternate suspect theory as speculative.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his statement of claim against the Attorney General of Quebec and its agents.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the Province of Quebec has procedural immunity against such a suit in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that while Quebec legislation permits suits against the Crown, it only renders Quebec liable to be sued in its own courts, not in the courts of other provinces.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder, aggravated assault, and uttering a death threat, as well as his six-year sentence for attempted murder.

The Crown conceded the aggravated assault conviction violated the Kienapple principle, and it was stayed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for attempted murder, finding the trial judge correctly refused to leave self-defence with the jury as there was no objective air of reality to the defence given the pre-emptive nature of the machete attack.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's subjective fear was not a mitigating factor and the six-year sentence was not manifestly unfit.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentence imposed on the respondent for a home invasion robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in granting 1.6-to-1 credit for time spent in a treatment facility and overemphasized rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in principle regarding the pre-sentence credit and that the sentence was outside the normal range for home invasion robbery.

However, based on fresh evidence of the respondent's exceptional and continued rehabilitation, the Court declined to interfere with the sentence, finding further incarceration would serve little useful purpose.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted break and enter and related offences, receiving a sentence of two years less a day and three years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by denying credit for five months of pre-trial custody without providing reasons.

The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in principle by failing to provide reasons for denying credit.

However, given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the fact that the offences occurred shortly after his statutory release, the Court concluded the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and dismissed the appeal.

Following the release of the court's endorsement in the appeals, counsel for the respondents wrote to the court concerning the disposition of the agreed upon costs.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum awarding costs of $14,000 to the estate trustee and another $14,000 to the bank, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The respondents obtained summary judgment in the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court against the appellants on personal guarantees.

The respondents applied to enforce the judgments in Ontario.

The appellants argued the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed this argument, noting the appellants had raised the issue in Louisiana and failed to appeal the foreign court's ruling that it had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not open to the appellants to re-litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Ontario after participating in the foreign proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdictional ruling.

The mother appealed a decision granting Crown wardship with no access for her two younger children.

The trial judge had differentiated the situation of the older children, who were given a chance to reintegrate with the mother, from the younger children, who were doing well in foster care and had no alternative placement if reintegration failed.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's individual assessment of the best interests of each child and upheld the disposition of Crown wardship with no access.

The appeal was dismissed.

The families of two deceased First Nations persons and the Nishnawbe Aski Nation sought to challenge the representativeness of the jury rolls for two coroners' inquests, arguing that First Nations persons living on reserves were systematically excluded.

The presiding coroners refused to issue summonses to the director of court operations to inquire into the jury roll preparation.

The Court of Appeal held that coroners have jurisdiction by necessary implication to inquire into the representativeness of a jury roll and to remedy an unrepresentative list.

The Court found sufficient evidence to warrant the summonses, allowed the appeals, and ordered a new inquest into one of the deaths.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a motorcycle accident.

In a related civil action, he was examined for discovery and testified he had no memory of the accident.

At his criminal trial, he gave a detailed account of the accident.

The trial judge allowed the Crown to cross-examine the appellant on his discovery evidence to impeach his credibility, finding that s. 13 of the Charter did not apply.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that under R. v. Henry, prior compelled evidence is inadmissible against an accused even for the purpose of challenging credibility.

The appellants appealed a judgment granting the respondent bank the right to enforce a defaulted mortgage.

The appellants argued that the discovery of asbestos substantially increased their costs and sought more time to pay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellants had missed about a year and a half of payments and failed to refinance despite a previous adjournment.

The court affirmed that the appellants have no defence to the action but retain the right to redeem the mortgage at any time before the property is sold.

The plaintiffs, former executives and shareholders of Med-Eng, sued the company and its directors for oppressive conduct regarding a share repurchase.

After Med-Eng was acquired by Allen-Vanguard, the plaintiffs commenced a new action against the original defendants and added defendants (the acquirer, offeree shareholders, and escrow agent), seeking a constructive trust over an escrow fund.

The motions judge struck the new action as an abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action against the added defendants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the new action circumvented the rules for amending pleadings and adding parties, and that no cause of action in unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, or resulting trust was pleaded against the added defendants.