Kathryn N. Feldman

The landlord appealed a summary judgment decision regarding its termination of a commercial lease.

The parties had orally agreed to extend the commencement date of the lease for at least one year.

The landlord later attempted to terminate the lease under a clause allowing termination if it could not deliver possession within six months of the commencement date.

The Court of Appeal held that the termination notice provided in December 2011 was out of time, as the commencement date remained April 1, 2011, and the landlord failed to exercise its termination right within the six-month window.

Judgment was granted in favour of the tenant for breach of contract.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their third-party claim against their former lawyer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

The lawyer had acted for both the appellants and the vendors in a family share purchase transaction involving a promissory note and consulting agreements.

The lawyer failed to recognize the potential conflict of interest, did not advise the appellants to obtain independent legal advice, and failed to explain the full business risks and legal liabilities of the transaction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the lawyer breached his fiduciary duty and fell below the standard of care, and awarded the appellants damages for the amount they paid to settle the resulting action on the promissory note.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with pre-sentence custody credited on a 1:1 basis.

The sentencing judge denied enhanced credit on the mistaken belief that the appellant's bail had been revoked.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found this was a material factual misunderstanding.

Applying the principles from Summers, the Court held the appellant was entitled to enhanced credit of 1.5:1, as there was no evidence to rebut the inference that he had lost eligibility for early release.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced accordingly.

The appellant was injured while working as a go-kart race director.

He had signed a waiver releasing the respondents from liability.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action based on the waiver.

On appeal, the court found that the appellant was an employee covered under Part X of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The court held that it is contrary to public policy to allow individuals to contract out of the protections of Part X of the Act.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and breach of probation, and sentenced to 18 months and 12 months consecutive, plus three years' probation.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the identification evidence was weak, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis of the identification evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant had a lengthy history of similar offences on public transit, justifying the sentence and the probation condition prohibiting his use of public transit.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals on drug trafficking charges, which followed the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Police executed a search warrant at a multi-unit building but entered the respondent's basement apartment by mistake, as the warrant targeted a different unit and suspect.

Despite realizing the error, police continued searching for over an hour before obtaining a second warrant, which was also found to be facially invalid for failing to specify the unit.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the warrants were invalid and that the serious Charter breaches warranted exclusion of the evidence.

The appellant was convicted of fraud-related offences arising from a large-scale internet fraud scheme operated from his home involving stolen and altered corporate cheques.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions for similar cheque frauds as similar act evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the similarities between the prior conduct and the alleged offences were sufficient to overcome the objective improbability of coincidence, and noting the Crown's case was formidable even without the similar act evidence.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for arson, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

She argued the Board erred in finding she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence indicating a high risk of decompensation and violent behaviour if the appellant discontinued her medication.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision upholding his conviction.

The conviction related to a car driven to the border that was found to be subject to duties under section 159 of the Customs Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's decision and denied leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed the probation conditions imposed following a conviction for breach of probation, arguing that the requirements to remain in Ontario and report weekly were improper.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge properly exercised their discretion.

The conditions were necessary to monitor the appellant, particularly because the underlying breach occurred while he was outside the province, and did not unduly restrict his mobility rights since he could seek permission to travel or vary the reporting frequency.

The appellants, students in a post-graduate program, brought a class action against the respondent college for a misleading statement in its course calendar regarding the opportunity to complete industry designations.

At the damages trial, the judge awarded aggregate damages under the Consumer Protection Act but excluded the third cohort of students from the class.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reinstating the third cohort into the class, finding that reliance is not required for a Consumer Protection Act claim.

The Court dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge's award of aggregate damages.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and assault following a brawl in a restaurant where he brandished a knife and a patron was stabbed.

The appellant testified he brandished the knife in self-defence and the stabbing was accidental.

The trial judge refused to leave self-defence to the jury, finding it incompatible with accident, and directed the jury that the first two elements of the weapons charge were proven.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge usurped the jury's fact-finding function, erred in finding self-defence and accident incompatible, and improperly directed a verdict on essential elements.

The appellant's home was damaged during exterior restoration work when the contractor failed to properly seal areas against water.

The appellant's insurer denied coverage based on a 'faulty workmanship' exclusion.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the exclusion precluded claims for both direct and resulting damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the 'faulty workmanship' exclusion must be interpreted narrowly to exclude only direct damage, preserving coverage for resulting damage under the all-risks policy.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual assault and unlawful confinement against his domestic partner.

He was subsequently designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention.

He appealed the convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding corroboration, consent, and the justification under s. 27 of the Criminal Code.

He also appealed the dangerous offender designation and the indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and upholding the dangerous offender designation and sentence based on the appellant's extensive history of domestic violence and treatment-resistant personality disorders.

The appellant appealed the trial decisions regarding custody, equalization of net family property, spousal support, and costs following a high-conflict separation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the custody appeal as moot since the children were now adults.

The court upheld the trial judge's calculation of net family property, finding no error in excluding the pre-marriage mortgage on the matrimonial home or in denying an unequal division.

The spousal support award of $10,000 per month and the discretionary costs awards were also affirmed, with the court emphasizing deference to trial judges in family law matters.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the application judge erred in admitting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Police had entered his apartment after a break-in and searched kitchen drawers to find identifying information, discovering drugs and a gun.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the police conduct was an error in judgment rather than bad faith, and that the evidence should not be excluded under the Grant test.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and uttering death threats, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board properly applied the significant threat standard and reasonably relied on expert evidence regarding the appellant's delusional disorder, refusal to take medication, and lack of insight.

The conditional discharge was upheld.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for a sexual assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention on a secure forensic unit.

He argued he should be transferred to a general forensic unit or given a hybrid order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable given the appellant's ongoing inappropriate sexual behaviour and the increased risk to others if supervision were decreased.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, raising grounds of appeal including errors in jury instructions regarding police narrative evidence, eyewitness identification, and prior statements, as well as the trial judge's refusal to quash a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions and no basis to interfere with the trial judge's Garofoli analysis regarding the search warrant.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault offences arising from an incident where police responded to a disconnected 911 call at her residence.

The appellant, who was experiencing a mental health crisis, locked herself in her bedroom and subsequently attacked an officer with a knife when police entered.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the police were trespassing, finding they acted reasonably under their duty to protect life.

The court allowed the appeal only to the extent of staying one count under the Kienapple principle and amending another count to particularize the use of a weapon.