Kathryn N. Feldman

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and break and enter, arguing the trial judge erred in finding his video statement to police was voluntary.

He alleged an officer induced the statement by suggesting he would be released after they talked.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that no such inducement was made and that the statement was voluntary, noting the trial judge was entitled to make findings based on the evidence and context despite the lack of police notes for a brief interaction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed from summary judgments granted to two former employees in wrongful dismissal actions brought under the simplified procedure.

The motion judge had awarded damages based on 18 and 20-month notice periods and excused a six-month delay in mitigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals, finding that the motion judge failed to assess the fairness of deciding the matter by summary judgment given the procedural constraints of Rule 76.04, which precluded cross-examination on affidavits.

Because credibility and conflicting evidence were central to the issues of notice extension and mitigation, summary judgment was inappropriate.

The appellant appealed his convictions for kidnapping and robbery, arguing that the trial judge's questions to a defence witness created an apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly followed the established protocol by waiting until the conclusion of the witness's testimony to ask clarifying questions on a narrow issue and allowing further re-examination.

The applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment.

His summary conviction appeal was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to perfect it, and a subsequent application to re-open the appeal was denied.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and to introduce fresh evidence regarding a surveillance video and a deportation order resulting from his sentence.

The Court of Appeal found it had jurisdiction under s. 839 of the Criminal Code, admitted the fresh evidence regarding the deportation order, and allowed the appeal in part, permitting the applicant to re-open his summary conviction appeal as it relates to sentence only.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal court judge's decision dismissing his application to reopen his appeal and extend the time to file a notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction under section 839(1) of the Criminal Code to hear an appeal from a decision refusing to extend time or reopen an appeal.

However, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that despite the lower court applying the test for an extension of time rather than reopening an appeal, there was no injustice.

The applicant had delayed five years without reasonable explanation, and there was no merit to the proposed appeal from his convictions for assault with intent to resist arrest and carrying a concealed weapon.

The parties appealed a trial decision regarding financial issues following their separation.

The Court of Appeal corrected the trial judge's error in imputing income to the respondent, finding she was not deliberately underemployed due to health challenges.

The court adjusted spousal support to the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range based on correct income figures.

The court also upheld the appellant's obligation to pay for extraordinary expenses (music lessons) despite the respondent's mother having paid for them, and maintained the trial judge's order regarding medical insurance.

The applicant, convicted of sexual assault, applied under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the appointment of counsel for his appeal after being denied Legal Aid on financial grounds.

A previous application was denied based on his girlfriend's income, but new evidence clarified she could not assist him.

The Court of Appeal granted the application, finding the applicant lacked sufficient means, had an arguable case regarding the trial judge's credibility findings, and could not effectively present the nuanced legal issues without counsel.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order staying its action for wrongful termination and tortious misconduct based on a forum selection clause in an Exclusive Sales Agreement.

The clause required disputes to be settled by binding arbitration in Germany.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the broad language of the clause captured both the contract and tort claims against the contracting party.

The majority also upheld the stay against the non-contracting respondents, finding their claims were factually intertwined with those against the contracting party.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal in part, finding no jurisdiction to force arbitration on non-parties.

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed the dismissal of its motions for summary judgment and to strike portions of the respondent's claim.

The respondent, an interim receiver, sued the appellant for breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant argued the claim was statute-barred and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the limitation period did not begin until the respondent received withheld reports containing material facts, and found no error in the dismissal of the abuse of process motion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant failed to pay support arrears and post security as previously ordered by the court as a condition of hearing the appeal.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on consent with agreed costs of $27,500.

The court ordered that $15,000 of the costs award be included as a support order under s. 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 2005, making it enforceable as a support order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action against the respondent bank for allegedly negligently negotiating a cheque for $35,518.95.

The cheque was made payable jointly to the appellant and a property management company.

The trial judge found that the bank acted properly in negotiating the cheque, which was endorsed by both payees and deposited into the account of the presenting payee.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings of fact or application of the law and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment under the Succession Law Reform Act that found her to be the common law spouse of the deceased, awarded her a $30,000 support order, and ordered her to pay $20,000 in costs to the respondent.

The appellant argued she should have been awarded the deceased's house, that a constructive trust should have been found, and that costs should have been paid out of the estate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's findings of fact, credibility assessments, or discretionary costs award.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a profit-sharing agreement for construction projects.

The trial judge found no negligence on one project and that both parties were responsible for the failure to earn a profit on the other, declining to apportion liability or award compensation.

The appellant also argued the trial judge erred in excluding its expert witness for lacking impartiality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings on liability and holding that the exclusion of the expert was a discretionary decision open to the trial judge.

The appellant sued her landlord for negligence after suffering serious personal injuries from a fall on a fire escape, alleging it was not kept free of ice and snow.

The trial judge dismissed the action, accepting the superintendent's evidence of daily inspections and finding no snow or ice was present, while rejecting the appellant's evidence on credibility grounds.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the record and there was no basis to interfere with the finding that the standard of care was met.

The appellant appealed his convictions and global three-year sentence for procuring a 16-year-old girl into prostitution, living off the avails of prostitution, and obtaining sexual services for consideration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the convictions were reasonably supported by the evidence, including evidence of persuasion and encouragement.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the vulnerability of the young complainant.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the lower court judge, found the appeal had no merit, and dismissed it with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding the respondent bank's refusal to approve a rehabilitation plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank had the discretion to refuse approval for expenses over $5,000 and that its refusal was reasonable based on the medical opinion evidence.

The court also held that the application judge's reasons were adequate.

The appellant sought leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to sue a litigation committee for defamation regarding a report sent to s. 38 litigation participants.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the words were not defamatory and were protected by qualified privilege.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence that the report was sent to non-participants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the fresh evidence application, upholding the finding that the words were not defamatory and noting the appellant had no reputation to protect among the recipients.

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to properly assess the merits of the 'wrong defendant' defence, the potential counterclaim for rent and breach of trademark, and the prejudice arising from the seizure of the trademark.

The default judgment and noting of default were set aside on conditions, including the payment of costs and the return of the trademark.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion requesting the court refuse to hear the appellant's appeal due to his failure to comply with trial orders regarding spousal support and security.

The Court of Appeal held that where an appellant wishes to be relieved of trial obligations pending appeal, the proper approach is to bring a stay motion.

The court adjourned the appeal, ordering that it would not be heard until the appellant paid the support arrears and posted the required security.