Karen M. Weiler

The appellant solicitors appealed an order confirming an assessment officer's report that significantly reduced their legal fees for a condominium conversion project.

The appellants argued the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction under s. 3 of the Solicitors Act because the terms of the retainer were in dispute, and that the officer improperly relied on expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the dispute was strictly over quantum and the allocation of work, not the terms of the retainer itself, and that the expert evidence was properly used to assess the value of the services.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the assessment officer erred in fully disallowing accounts related to construction liens, and increased the assessed accounts by $44,000.

The appellant was dismissed without cause and entered into a pre-litigation settlement agreement with the respondent.

After the appellant commenced a wrongful dismissal action, the respondent successfully moved for summary judgment to enforce the settlement under Rule 49.09.

The appellant's subsequent appeals and motions to set aside the judgment were dismissed.

The appellant then argued that the original order was a nullity because Rule 49.09 does not apply to pre-litigation settlements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the original motions judge had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, and any error in the method of enforcement did not render the decision a nullity.

The appellant wife appealed the trial judge's order regarding spousal support and equalization of net family property.

She argued the trial judge erred in finding she could contribute to her own support despite her claims of post-traumatic stress disorder, and erred in excluding funds the respondent husband managed for his father from his net family property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the support appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of her employability.

However, the Court allowed the equalization appeal in part, holding that while the $500,000 principal was held on resulting trust for the father, the $140,000 in investment income generated by the respondent belonged to him and must be included in his net family property.

The deceased was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and died several months later.

His estate commenced an action more than two years after the accident but within two years of his death.

The motion judge dismissed the action as statute-barred.

On appeal, the estate argued that the limitation period should run from the date of death under the Trustee Act and the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the death of the injured party does not create a new cause of action and the limitation period runs from the date of the accident.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order finding them in continued contempt of a previous court order that prohibited them from dispensing prescription eyewear without valid prescriptions.

The motion judge had imposed a fine of $50,000 per day, totaling $16,000,000.

On appeal, the appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness, that the motion judge erred in relying on evidence regarding franchisees, and that the penalty was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants had ample opportunity to respond to the allegations but made a tactical decision not to, that the evidentiary inferences were open to the motion judge, and that the massive fine was justified by the brazen and ongoing nature of the contempt.

The appellant, facing deportation to St. Lucia, obtained an unopposed custody order and a non-removal order for her children under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The non-removal order was intended to trigger a statutory stay of her deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The respondent Ministers successfully appealed the non-removal order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that family courts should not issue non-removal orders solely to frustrate federal immigration removal orders where there is no genuine family law dispute.

The appellants appealed a judgment based on a promissory note and uncontradicted evidence of debt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, refusing to entertain submissions that contradicted concessions appropriately made by the appellants' counsel before the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order regarding custody and parenting time under the Divorce Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the 'maximum contact' principle under s. 17(a) of the Divorce Act.

The court noted that the allocation of parenting time was consistent with the appellants' own submissions, albeit made on the assumption they would be the custodial parents.

Minor factual errors by the motion judge were not overriding.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $13,000.

The appellant mother appealed a final order regarding child support and retroactive support.

The order provided for $250 per month for one child, terminated support for another, and dismissed a claim for $16,566 in retroactive support.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act, as the amounts in issue were under $50,000.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons.

The Court also held that section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code creates a new substantive jurisdiction and applies prospectively only, meaning it could not reach the events in issue which occurred before it came into force in June 2008.

The plaintiff sued a corporate tenant for breach of a commercial lease and its sole shareholder personally for inducing the breach.

The plaintiff also sued a subsequent purchaser of the tenant's assets for unjust enrichment and fraudulent conveyance.

The trial judge found the tenant and shareholder liable but dismissed the claims against the purchaser.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the finding of personal liability against the shareholder, holding that entering into two leases was not a tortious act outside the scope of his authority and did not justify piercing the corporate veil.

The plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the purchaser was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting the respondent an enhanced supplementary pension based on an additional 36 months of service.

The trial judge found that the parties had a prior oral agreement regarding the pension credit and were mutually mistaken in believing the written letter agreement reflected this intention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to rectify the agreement, finding that the appellants' attempt to take advantage of the mistake amounted to unfair dealing.

The Court also agreed that promissory estoppel prevented the appellants from denying the pension entitlement.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for fraud and awarding the respondent $216,000 plus costs.

The respondent had been induced to invest $200,000 in a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by a co-defendant, who used the appellant's name and a 'show of money' transaction to give the scheme an air of legitimacy.

The trial judge found that the appellant was wilfully blind to the fraudulent scheme and his role in it.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's factual inferences and dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of liability based on wilful blindness.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and incest against his daughter.

He argued that the information was unsworn, that his Charter rights were violated because his DNA was not in the national databank prior to conviction, and that the trial judge erred in appreciating the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the procedural or Charter arguments and concluding there was ample evidence to support the convictions.

The applicant sought leave to appeal his convictions under the Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act arising from a collision with a train.

The appeal judge had dismissed his appeal, erroneously stating he lacked jurisdiction to hear Charter arguments.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the error but denied leave to appeal, finding that the applicant's Charter arguments regarding unreasonable delay, fair trial rights, self-incrimination, and double jeopardy had no arguable chance of success.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Provincial Offences Appeal court that had dismissed an appeal from a conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding a potential for a miscarriage of justice.

Two tenants of a shopping plaza appealed the dismissal of their applications regarding parking covenants in their respective commercial leases.

Good Life Corporation argued its lease guaranteed unlimited access to all parking spaces and prohibited the landlord from granting exclusive spaces to other tenants.

Royal LePage argued its lease entitled it to 30 exclusive parking spaces.

The Court of Appeal held that Good Life's lease only guaranteed general access to the parking lot, but prohibited the landlord from reducing the number of available spaces by granting additional reserved spaces to other tenants after the lease commenced.

The Court also held that Royal LePage was only entitled to 6 reserved spaces, not 30.

Both appeals were allowed in part to issue declarations clarifying these rights.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the care of her children, arguing that her trial counsel was incompetent for conceding that her son was in need of protection.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that counsel was not incompetent given the substantial medical evidence, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court also found no error in the decision not to place the other child in the appellant's care.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision granting relief to the individual respondents regarding subpoenas issued in relation to proceedings under the Trespass to Property Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish that the respondents had material evidence to give.

The Court also rejected allegations of Crown misconduct as a basis for a stay of proceedings, noting the Crown took no position on the subpoenas.

No costs were awarded on the appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for failure to provide a breath sample and impaired driving.

He argued the trial judge erred in treating videotaped evidence and in dismissing his section 10(b) Charter application regarding his right to consult counsel of choice.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no unreasonable errors in the trial judge's findings.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal.