Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellant, Mario Oliveira, brought a motion to review a chambers judge's order that refused to extend time to perfect his appeal of a contempt order and other related orders.

The Court of Appeal found that the chambers judge erred in principle by denying the extension primarily on the basis of perceived lack of merit, especially given the absence of written reasons for the contempt order.

The panel granted the extension of time for the appellant to perfect his appeal related to the contempt order, the subsequent sentencing decision, and to seek leave to appeal the costs order, while upholding the sealing order for a document filed in violation of the deemed undertaking rule.

The respondent, NYX Tannery Ltd., brought a motion to quash two appeals filed by the appellant, Julie Daly.

One appeal was from a costs order of $30,000, and the other from an order amending the title of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal quashed both appeals, determining that the order amending the title of proceedings was an interlocutory order requiring leave to appeal to the Divisional Court, and the costs order, being less than $50,000, also required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal concerning a dispute among investors in a residential subdivision.

The appeal, brought by 1750714 Ontario Inc. et al., was dismissed.

The court determined the quantum of costs payable by the appellants to the respondent, 1750738 Ontario Inc., on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors such as complexity, importance of issues, and party conduct.

The court awarded a global amount of $32,000 to the respondent.

The appellant, an undischarged bankrupt, appealed a bankruptcy judge's order interpreting a trust.

The Royal Bank of Canada, as an assignee of the Trustee in Bankruptcy's rights, sought to recover proceeds from the sale of a property held in trust for the appellant.

The appellant argued his interest was suspended during bankruptcy under a specific trust provision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the bankruptcy judge's finding that a mandatory distribution provision overrode the suspension clause, concluding the property vested in the appellant at the "Time of Division" and thus formed part of his bankrupt estate, available to creditors.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondents damages for illegal distress, conversion, and defamation.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to appear at the hearing and had previously shown no interest in proceeding, including not responding to motions to remove their counsel.

The court found that the appellants had not demonstrated any interest in prosecuting their appeal.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by 2651171 Ontario Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs for the motions for summary judgment and the action.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 49.10(1).

The respondent, Patrick Brey, objected to the quantum and argued for a reduction due to the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found the appellant prima facie entitled to substantial indemnity costs due to the offer to settle, but ordered a reduction in the total amount awarded due to the unfounded allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the appellant, emphasizing that such serious allegations require strict pleading and proof.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that dismissed their action as statute-barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

They argued that exceptions for concealment of information and incapacity applied, and also challenged the derivative nature of claims under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the asserted exceptions to the limitation period and affirming that Family Law Act claims are derivative and tied to the principal claim, not independent.

The appellant, S.R., appealed convictions for sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, and invitation to touching for a sexual purpose.

The appeal focused on the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's credibility, specifically alleging material misapprehensions of evidence and a failure to properly assess the evidence of another witness (the complainant's father).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's misapprehensions of the appellant's evidence were substantial and central to the credibility assessment, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The court also noted an error in failing to assess the credibility of the complainant's father's evidence, which contradicted the complainant's testimony in some respects and supported the appellant's.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

This is an appeal concerning the interpretation of a complex project agreement for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The application judge had found that a specific contractual provision (s. 62.1(c)) requiring a "Variation Enquiry" was triggered by an internal email from the Crown agencies to their own staff, which was never sent to the consortium.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge made a palpable and overriding error in concluding that this internal email constituted notification to the consortium.

The appeal was allowed, the original judgment set aside, and the application remitted to the Superior Court for a rehearing to consider other arguments, including good faith and the indivisibility of the Crown, which the application judge had not addressed.

The appellant appealed convictions for non-consensual distribution of intimate images, criminal harassment, extortion by libel, and mischief to computer data.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient assistance and erred by allowing the trial to proceed without counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial was fair, the judge provided adequate assistance, and the appellant's actions suggested an attempt to delay proceedings rather than a genuine inability to secure counsel.

The appellant, The Catalyst Capital Group Inc., appealed an order striking its claim for misfeasance in public office against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (HMQ) without leave to amend.

Catalyst alleged HMQ improperly caused its removal as a participant in the Pan Am Athletes’ Village Project.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding that Catalyst's pleadings, despite being extensive, lacked sufficient material facts to plausibly support the required element of bad faith or unlawful conduct for the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The court reiterated that bald allegations of bad faith are insufficient without factual underpinning.

The appellant was convicted of assault against his wife, A.B., based on her testimony corroborated by date-stamped photographs, despite the trial judge having reasonable doubt on related firearm charges due to credibility concerns with the complainant and another witness.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, claiming an illogical result from incompatible findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons could have been clearer in explaining the differing credibility findings across distinct charges, it was permissible for the judge to accept parts of a witness's testimony when supported by other evidence.

The court affirmed that the verdict was not unreasonable under the Beaudry/Sinclair test, as the findings were distinct and supported by the evidence.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of an Ontario court to make a child support order under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002 (ISO Act) when a foreign support order from Finland already existed, but its registration in Ontario had been set aside due to the payor's fraudulent misrepresentations.

The Superior Court had quashed the Ontario Court of Justice's order for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that two valid support orders could not coexist.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 21 of the ISO Act explicitly grants Ontario courts jurisdiction to hear a new support application in such circumstances, especially given the payor's deceptive conduct.

The court emphasized the ISO Act's purpose of facilitating support enforcement and dismissed concerns about potential double recovery.

The Crown appealed, with leave, a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that set aside a sexual assault conviction and ordered a new trial.

The complainant testified to waking up unconscious during sexual activity with the respondent.

The trial judge found the complainant unable to and did not consent, concluding she was unconscious.

The summary conviction appeal judge (SCAJ) criticized the trial judge's reasons for insufficiency, particularly regarding the timing of unconsciousness, prior consent, and the handling of expert toxicological evidence and post-offence conduct.

The Court of Appeal found the SCAJ unduly critical, reiterating that trial judges are not required to detail every piece of evidence and that expert evidence, while not definitive, supported the complainant's account.

The Court of Appeal rejected the SCAJ's suggestion of drawing an adverse inference against the Crown for perceived deficiencies in expert evidence presentation, deeming it unprecedented.

It also found the trial judge's use of post-offence conduct, though equivocal, was not fatal in a judge-alone trial.

Applying the principle that an unconscious person cannot consent, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge was entitled to find an absence of consent.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a real estate agreement's requisition deadline for off-title objections, specifically regarding the lawful use of a property described as a fourplex.

The appellant buyer raised timely objections about the property's legal use, which the respondent seller refused to address, leading to the transaction's failure.

The motion judge had erred by misinterpreting the deadline provision, deeming the objections untimely.

The Court of Appeal found the objections were timely and valid, as the property's lawful use as a fourplex could not be confirmed.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted the return of its deposit and damages.

The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence following convictions for sexual assault and prostitution-related offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in concluding that the appellant showed a likelihood of causing harm through a failure to control sexual impulses, as required for a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the evidence of prostitution-related activities, while harmful, did not demonstrate a failure to control sexual impulses.

The appeal was allowed, the dangerous offender designation was set aside, and the appellant was designated a long-term offender with a determinate sentence of 6.5 years and a 10-year long-term supervision order, effective from the original sentencing date.

This appeal concerned a dispute between former spouses over an Ontario condominium property.

The appellant argued the respondent's claim was a statute-barred equalization claim under the Family Law Act, and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction or the matter was res judicata due to prior Saudi Arabian annulment proceedings.

The respondent asserted a resulting or constructive trust claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction as Saudi Arabian courts declined jurisdiction over foreign property and their annulment proceedings did not resolve property issues.

The court further held that the claim was a distinct equitable trust claim, not an equalization claim, and therefore the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied, not the two-year period under the Family Law Act.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a sexual assault charge, asserting errors in the trial judge's articulation and application of consent law, and insufficiency of reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly set out the law on consent and that the reasons were sufficient, particularly as the acquittal rested on the Crown's failure to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt due to the complainant's unreliability.

The appellant, Brandi Mascarenas, appealed her conviction for importing cocaine.

She had received a controlled delivery of appliances containing cocaine.

At trial, her explanation for her involvement was rejected by the judge, who concluded she was a willing participant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of knowledge, application of circumstantial evidence principles (R. v. Villaroman), or the burden of proof.

The court found the trial judge's reasons, though not lengthy, were adequate.

The appellant, executor of an estate, appealed a summary judgment dismissing a claim against a brokerage for damages arising from a margin account sell-out.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the brokerage had provided clear warnings about the undermargined accounts and its right to sell out, and that the action was not too complicated for summary judgment.