Karen M. Weiler

The appellants, a non-profit housing co-operative and a co-operative housing federation, appealed an order approving a receivership sale of the co-operative's assets to a municipality-controlled entity.

The appellants argued that the motion judge failed to properly consider the special nature of co-operative housing and the rights of its members.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard Soundair principles for approving a receiver's sale apply, and that the motion judge correctly balanced the special factors of social housing against the financial realities and statutory framework.

The appellant, having successfully appealed a Divisional Court decision, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $39,000 for the appeal and leave to appeal.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to the novelty and broader importance of the issues raised, or alternatively, that costs should be modest given the Small Claims Court origin.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent that the costs award should be modest.

The court reinstated the Small Claims Court costs of $1,150, awarded Divisional Court costs of $1,200, and fixed the costs of the appeal and leave application at $2,500, all payable to the appellant.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's findings on two factual issues in a bifurcated medical malpractice trial: whether the appellant doctor recommended a drug to the respondent, and whether a medical note accurately recorded a meeting.

The trial judge found against the appellants on both issues, relying on expert forensic evidence suggesting the note was added to the file later.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's treatment of the expert evidence or her decision not to address equivocal evidence from other doctors.

The costs award for the bifurcated proceeding was also upheld.

The appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and related weapons offences following a home invasion, and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his sentence offended the parity principle because his co-accused received a 5-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of witness credibility.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the disparity was justified by the co-accused's early guilty plea and the appellant's extensive criminal record for violent offences.

The appellant appealed his four-year sentence for extortion, kidnapping, and related offences, arguing it offended the parity principle when compared to the eight-month conditional sentence received by the ringleader of the enterprise.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge committed no error in principle.

The disparity was justified by the ringleader's lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitation, contrasted with the appellant's extensive criminal record and ongoing danger to society.

The appellant, a doctoral student, sued her university and two professors for breach of contract, negligence, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, alleging harassment and academic delays.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding the court lacked jurisdiction over academic disputes, and transferred the venue to Ottawa.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court does have jurisdiction over tort and contract claims arising in an academic context.

The Court set aside the jurisdictional dismissal but struck the majority of the statement of claim for pleading evidence rather than material facts, granting the appellant leave to amend.

The venue transfer to Ottawa was upheld.

The appellant, a government employee, was convicted of fraud on the government and breach of trust after directing government funding applicants to a consulting firm that subcontracted work to his wife's company.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge misinterpreted s. 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and erred in admitting offshore banking documents obtained contrary to foreign law.

He also appealed his six-month custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 121(1)(c) does not require the accused to personally benefit when a family member receives the benefit, the admission of the banking documents did not render the trial unfair, and the sentence was fit given the need for general deterrence.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board failed to meaningfully consider a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal found that while the Board failed to properly address the mechanisms for return under the Criminal Code if the appellant breached conditions, its ultimate decision was not unreasonable.

The appellant's lack of insight into his illness, history of non-compliance, and the stressors he would face in the community justified the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for break, enter, and theft of coins, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding coin roll papers found in his motel room.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence in the record to support the alleged misapprehension.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if an error occurred, the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including eyewitness testimony and the appellant's unexplained possession of the stolen coins, rendered the verdict safe.

The Crown appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent, who pleaded guilty to administering a noxious chemical and criminal harassment against a former intimate partner and co-worker.

The respondent repeatedly sprayed a corrosive chemical on the victim's workstation, causing severe burns and blistering over several years.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in concluding the conduct was not a 'serious personal injury offence' under s. 752 of the Criminal Code, which rendered a conditional sentence unavailable.

The Court also found the original sentence demonstrably unfit given the significant breach of trust and extensive planning, varying the sentence to two years less a day of imprisonment.

The appellant, a home care provider, was convicted of defrauding an elderly couple of over $35,000 and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment.

She appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing that her s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed by a 33-month delay, and that the trial judge erred in admitting hearsay statements from the deceased complainants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's s. 11(b) analysis or his admission of the hearsay evidence based on necessity and reliability.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge's allocation of pre-sentence credit was within his discretion and the sentence was fit given the significant breach of trust.

The self-represented appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error, unreasonableness, or miscarriage of justice in the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat.

The court noted that the appellant's request for an outpatient assessment could be raised at her next annual review.

The plaintiff brought a Small Claims Court action against a court-appointed family law assessor, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis of expert witness immunity and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court overturned the decision, finding that the motion judge erred by making findings of fact on a summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while summary judgment motions are not available under the Small Claims Court Rules, the motion judge's decision was sustainable under rule 12.02 as a motion to strike a claim that is a waste of time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The respondent supplier manufactured custom doors for the appellant subcontractor, who failed to pay.

The supplier claimed breach of trust under s. 8(1) of the Construction Lien Act against the subcontractor and its principals.

The trial judge dismissed the trust claim because the supplier did not know the specific improvements where the doors were installed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, holding that s. 8(1) does not require a supplier to intend that materials be incorporated into a known and specific improvement at the time of supply.

A link to the improvement is sufficient, and in this case, the link was established because the subcontractor deliberately frustrated the supplier's attempts to trace the materials.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement based on a consent filed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay trial costs of $97,000 to one appellant, and $250,000 plus GST and disbursements to the other appellants.

The Minister assessed the respondent for unremitted retail sales tax on the basis that she was a director of her brother's company.

The respondent was never a director and had no involvement with the company, but missed the time limits to object to the assessment under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

She obtained a declaration from the Superior Court that she was not a director and not liable for the tax.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Minister's appeal, holding that the respondent could have raised a due diligence defence under the Act and that disputes concerning the validity of an assessment must be resolved within the statutory framework, not through an application for declaratory relief.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and threatening death after deliberately driving over his estranged wife and dragging her under his vehicle.

He was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in finding he knew he dragged the victim, categorizing the offence as 'stark horror', and admitting prejudicial victim impact statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence reflected the appellant's moral culpability and the numerous aggravating features of the domestic violence offence.

The respondent pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and two counts of income tax evasion after operating a tax preparation business that submitted false charitable donation receipts, resulting in $3.28 million in improper refunds.

The sentencing judge originally imposed a sentence of one day in jail and a global fine.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence manifestly unfit given the magnitude of the fraud, the breach of trust, and the respondent's pivotal role.

The court substituted a sentence of two years' incarceration and separate fines for each count of tax evasion.

The appellant sought leave to appeal from a summary conviction appeal court decision that dismissed her appeal from conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave, finding that no question of law or matter of public importance was raised, and declined to hear a new issue raised for the first time on appeal.