Kathryn N. Feldman

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault.

He argued that the trial judge erred by allowing the Crown to advance an alternative theory of liability based on his statement, and that the trial judge unreasonably concluded the assault created a risk of bodily harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the alternative theory and holding that the trial judge's conclusion regarding the risk of bodily harm was reasonable.

The appellant was convicted of possession of counterfeit money and instruments for making counterfeit money after police discovered a large counterfeiting operation run by her husband in their shared apartment.

She appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding she had constructive possession under s. 4(3)(b) of the Criminal Code merely by residing there and failing to call the police.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably inferred a measure of control from her continued residence, knowledge of the operation, use of the computers, and flight upon her husband's arrest.

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding no legal obligation to report the crime and insufficient evidence of control.

The appellant's new counsel requested an adjournment at the opening of the appeal hearing to obtain fresh expert evidence, following the recent death of the appellant's previous counsel.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment to a peremptory date without expressing a view on the admissibility of the proposed fresh evidence under the Palmer test.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition on charges of receiving secret commissions and fraud, and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him to Hong Kong.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence that he failed to disclose the commissions to his employer or that they were paid in consideration for any act.

He also argued that the delay in commencing extradition proceedings prejudiced his right to a fair trial and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, finding sufficient evidence to support the committal and concluding that the Minister's decision was reasonable.

The appellant, a participant in the provincial Witness Protection Program, sued the government for breach of contract, negligence, and Charter violations after experiencing significant delays in receiving new identity documents and being terminated from the program.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that while the government's administration of the program was flawed and delayed, it had exceeded its financial obligations under the agreement, and the appellant's own conduct justified his termination from the program.

The appellant posted $5,000 as security for costs for an appeal.

Because the appeal was allowed in part, the Court of Appeal amended its previous order to direct that the $5,000 security for costs be released and returned to the appellant.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable because the trial judge failed to address a discrepancy in witness testimony regarding whether the robber had a Jamaican accent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were comprehensive and adequately addressed most discrepancies in the identification evidence.

The court noted that defence counsel had not raised the accent issue at trial and the evidence on the point was not strong.

The appellant failed to appear for his appeal from a 2007 Ontario Review Board decision.

The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, noting that the 2007 hearing had been superseded by a subsequent hearing in October 2008 that proceeded on a joint submission, and the appellant was now living in the community.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after arming himself with a handgun and shooting into a vehicle, killing the victim.

The trial judge characterized the offence as close to murder and imposed an effective sentence of 19 years (10 years plus 9 years pre-trial custody credit).

The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was beyond the range and violated the parity rule, as the person who hired him received 14 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for a near-murder manslaughter and the higher sentence was justified by the appellant's role.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentences imposed on the respondents for money laundering offences.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred by criticizing the police sting aspect of the case, this error did not detract from his careful review of the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly unfit and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent, a court officer, was convicted of assaulting a young person in his custody.

The trial judge imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence and two years' probation.

On appeal, the summary conviction appeal judge substituted a conditional discharge.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the trial judge's sentence, holding that a custodial sentence is required for court officers who commit premeditated assaults on vulnerable prisoners, emphasizing the principles of deterrence and denunciation for breaches of trust.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder on three grounds: the admission of drop cloths and a shovel as evidence of planning and deliberation, the use of evidence regarding a gun from a prior home invasion, and the admission of evidence found in his vehicle despite an error in the search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The court found that the physical evidence had sufficient probative value, the gun evidence was properly admitted for motive and identity with appropriate limiting instructions, and the search warrant error was a minor technical breach that did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under the Charter.

The appellant landlord appealed an order granting the respondent tenants specific performance of an option to purchase contained in a commercial lease.

The landlord argued that damages were a sufficient remedy, the option was a clog on the equity of redemption, and the option provision was ambiguous.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that specific performance was appropriate because the property was unique to the tenants due to their significant investments.

The court also held that there was no mortgage between the parties to create a clog on the equity of redemption, and the option provision was unambiguous.

The appellant appealed convictions and sentences for attempt fraud, assault peace officer, and personation.

On consent, the appeals regarding attempt fraud and assault peace officer were dismissed.

Based on fresh evidence, the conviction and sentence appeals for the personation offence were allowed and replaced by an absolute discharge.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion under Rule 59.06 to set aside a previous decision dismissing his action for abuse of process.

He argued that under s. 31 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, only the Appeals Tribunal could determine whether his right to maintain a lawsuit could be taken away.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the previous dismissal of his action was upheld on the alternate ground of abuse of process, as he had claimed compensation from the Board, was denied, and had a right of appeal under the Act which he had not pursued.

The court held he could not circumvent his statutory appeal right by suing in court.

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

The respondent sought to maintain only its claim for damages.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim for damages was not foreclosed by res judicata and dismissed the appeal with costs.

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

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's careful and thorough reasons on either of the points argued.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding pre- and post-judgment interest at a compounded rate of 5.59% semi-annually for breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant knew the funds would be reinvested to earn a compound return was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that compound interest is an appropriate measure of damages where the parties knew or should have known the disputed money would bear compound interest.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's conclusion regarding waiver.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion, which turned narrowly on the absence of a non-waiver agreement and the specific wording and timing of an August 23, 2006 letter.

The Court noted this decision does not pronounce on the general effect of a reservation of rights letter.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for break and enter, uttering a threat, and possession of a weapon.

He argued that the identification evidence was unreliable and that he was prejudiced by the loss of the weapon (a nightstick) before trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the identification evidence supported by the appellant's own statement and circumstantial evidence, and no prejudice from the missing weapon.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the four-year term for a home invasion to collect a drug debt was within the appropriate range.