Karen M. Weiler

The appellant appealed a decision awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal, specifically challenging the inclusion of commission income and a bonus during the 16-month notice period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the commission award, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent should continue to receive commission on all advertising revenue.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the bonus, finding the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding a guaranteed bonus.

The costs award from the court below was also reduced.

The appellant appealed orders requiring him to pay retroactive and prospective spousal support based on a material change in circumstances.

The parties had entered into a separation agreement that suspended support after the appellant lost his job, but allowed for a review upon a material change.

The trial judge found a material change when the appellant obtained new employment and their daughter ceased to be a child of the marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's interpretation of the agreement, her assessment of the evidence, or her application of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

The appellant appealed a decision granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent, arguing the motion judge erred in denying a second adjournment.

The motion had previously been adjourned and marked peremptory to the appellant, with instructions to either retain counsel or seek leave for a director to represent the corporation.

On the return date, the appellant had not retained counsel and provided no evidence to contradict the summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment and grant summary judgment.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, conceding that all grounds of appeal depended on the trial judge's finding that there was no fourth lease dated October 31, 2007, with Nemesis Entertainment as a tenant.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's rejection of the lease's existence was well anchored in the evidence and contained no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for failing to report a $9,500 Canada Pension Plan payment to the Ontario Disability Support Program for over five months.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred by not expressly addressing whether a reasonable person would consider the delay dishonest given the complexity of the social assistance system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly stated the law and reasonably concluded the appellant's knowing delay and immediate withdrawal of the funds constituted a dishonest act.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to attend a mental examination under s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to determine if he required a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or overriding and palpable error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, given previous court orders and expert reports concerning the appellant's conduct.

The appellant appealed an order appointing his mother and sister as guardians of property and personal care for his incapable sister.

The appellant argued the application judge made unreasonable findings of fact, unfairly disregarded his evidence, and failed to consider the incapable sister's best interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge's findings were supported by the evidence, including the finding that the appellant's actions were financially motivated.

The application judge properly scrutinized the management plans and concluded it was in the incapable sister's best interests to remain with her mother.

The appellant tenant commenced an application for a declaration of a valid lease after the respondent landlord terminated the tenancy and took possession of the premises.

Three years later, the appellant moved to direct a trial of the issues and amend its pleadings to claim damages for wrongful termination and loss of inventory.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments raised new causes of action that were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proposed damages claim was an alternative remedy arising from the same factual nexus originally pleaded in the application and supporting affidavit, and therefore did not constitute a new cause of action.

The respondents were charged with tax offences.

During the trial, the Crown directed a stay of proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code.

The respondents subsequently sought costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter for alleged prosecutorial negligence and Charter breaches.

The Summary Conviction Court judge held he retained jurisdiction to hear the costs application, which was upheld on certiorari by the Superior Court.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that once the Crown exercises its discretion to stay proceedings, the trial judge becomes functus and lacks jurisdiction to entertain a Charter costs application.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the respondent airline for a refund of a cancelled flight.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the two-year limitation period had expired under both the Montreal Convention and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court noted that the appellant's efforts to obtain a refund directly from the airline did not extend the limitation period.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing his arrest was unlawful, evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding there were objective grounds for the arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including a confidential informant tip and police surveillance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis and found no error in the assessment of evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the four-year term was fit and within the appropriate range.

Following a successful appeal regarding the apportionment of damages, the court determined the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The third parties were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $50,000 to the appellants and $75,000 to the respondents.

The appellants were ordered to pay $30,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondents, as the respondents were required to address all issues initially raised by the appellants.

The respondent brought a motion in his family law proceedings to compel his former solicitor to deliver his complete file to his new lawyer.

The former solicitor resisted, claiming a solicitor's lien for unpaid fees.

The motion judge ordered the file to be turned over temporarily for copying.

The former solicitor appealed.

During the appeal hearing, the parties agreed to a variation of the order allowing the former solicitor to retain original signed documents and provide electronic copies of electronic records.

The Court of Appeal varied the order accordingly and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant, a former student at Carleton University and employee of The Source, sued Carleton and BCE Inc. for conspiracy, wrongful termination, and various torts after receiving a failing grade and being terminated from his employment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against BCE Inc. and struck the claims against Carleton as an abuse of process, finding they were an attempt to re-litigate an internal academic appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the claims against the university constituted an abuse of process.

The Court also dismissed motions to set aside previous orders refusing to strike the respondents' affidavits.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought trial costs of over $200,000.

The respondent opposed, arguing the appellant failed to provide detailed dockets and that costs should be reduced for various reasons, including the extra time required for a bilingual proceeding.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's costs outline provided sufficient detail and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The Court applied a 20% discount to the claimed fees, deducted costs for a motion the respondent had won, and excluded one unsupported disbursement.

The Court awarded the appellant $162,239.25 in trial costs and amended the previous appeal costs order to include $16,683.65 in disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action under Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to pay outstanding costs awards.

The appellant argued that some costs were discharged by a previous order, raised historical grievances, and alleged bias against the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these arguments, noting the motion judge applied the correct test and appropriately exercised his discretion given the appellant offered no reason for non-payment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the summary judgment dismissal of her motion to change a consent final order that terminated spousal support.

She argued the motions judge erred in ruling third-party letters inadmissible, placing the onus on her to adduce expert evidence, finding the claim statute-barred under s. 17(10) of the Divorce Act, and failing to accord procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the medical evidence was admitted, it did not establish that the alleged worsening of her medical condition was related to the marriage as required by s. 17(10).

The self-represented appellant appealed a final judgment in family law proceedings, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing her requests for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the trial judge confirmed the appellant was prepared to proceed at the outset and properly rejected a mid-trial adjournment request lacking medical documentation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence.

During the hearing, she withdrew her appeal against the conviction.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's admission of the appellant's confession or the finding of guilt.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge considered all relevant principles and circumstances, and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.

The Wises severed their lakefront property, gifting one lot with road access to the appellants and retaining a water-access only lot.

The respondent bank, holding a mortgage on the retained lot, applied for an easement of necessity over the appellants' lot.

The application judge granted the easement, finding water access impractical and relying on public policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the test for an easement of necessity is strict necessity, not practical necessity.

Because water access existed at the time of the grant, the property was not inaccessible, defeating the claim for an easement regardless of inconvenience.