Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellant appealed a 24-month conditional sentence.

Based on unusual circumstances, significant pre-sentence custody, fresh evidence, and a Crown concession, the Court of Appeal found the original sentence unreasonable.

The court accepted a joint submission and varied the sentence to 12 months' incarceration, less 5 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 7 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the police violated his Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant at his home.

The police used a forced entry without knocking, handcuffed the appellant, and delayed his access to counsel.

The Court of Appeal found no breaches of s. 8 (search and seizure) or s. 9 (arbitrary detention), as the forced entry and handcuffing were justified for officer safety and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

However, the Court found two breaches of s. 10(b) (right to counsel) due to the police questioning the appellant before he could consult a lawyer and failing to facilitate contact with his counsel of choice.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the Court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches were not causally connected to the discovery of the drugs and exclusion would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a former grade seven teacher, appealed his convictions and sentence for committing indecent acts and sexual invitation involving a 12-year-old student.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, failing to address a motive to fabricate, and misapplying the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings or assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the two years less a day sentence was fit and the trial judge properly considered the appellant's mental health.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery of a package containing cocaine hidden in food items.

On appeal, they argued the verdicts were unreasonable because the importation was complete before they handled the package, and that the circumstantial evidence did not prove they knew the package contained drugs.

They also argued the trial judge erred in leaving wilful blindness with the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the ultimate domestic recipient was the importer, the circumstantial evidence supported the jury's inference of knowledge, and the inherently suspicious circumstances justified the wilful blindness instruction.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding that a binding oral contract existed between the parties regarding a real estate development project, and ordering specific performance.

The trial judge found that the respondent's principal invested in the project on the condition that his son's company would build houses on 25% of the lots.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the oral contract's essential terms were certain, that a subsequent shareholder agreement's entire agreement clause did not invalidate the oral contract because it was not brought to the respondent's attention, and that specific performance was the appropriate remedy given the unique nature of the development and the inadequacy of damages.

The appellant sought to enforce letters of request from a Florida court to obtain documents from the former Ontario lawyers of his ex-wife and daughter for use in a Florida action for parental alienation.

The application judge dismissed the application on public policy grounds, finding it would interfere with solicitor-client privilege and client confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the hearing was procedurally fair and the application judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to enforce the letters of request because they sought presumptively privileged documents.

The respondent applied to the University of Waterloo as a transfer student but did not meet the academic standards due to prior grades affected by undiagnosed disabilities.

The University's Admissions Committee rejected his application based solely on those unaccommodated grades.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed his discrimination complaint, finding the University met its duty to accommodate.

The Divisional Court set aside the HRTO decision as unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the HRTO decision was unreasonable, as the University could not rely solely on unaccommodated grades to demonstrate reasonable accommodation, but varied the remedy to remit the matter back to the HRTO rather than the Admissions Committee.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred by relying on wilful blindness when there was no air of reality to it on the record.

The Crown conceded there was no air of reality to wilful blindness but argued the trial judge found actual knowledge, or alternatively, that the curative proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's repeated references to wilful blindness suggested he may have had a reasonable doubt about actual knowledge.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, as the error was not minor and the prosecution's case was not overwhelming, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant sued the directors and auditors of a credit union after losing his $5 million investment, alleging misrepresentations in an offering statement.

Midway through the trial, the appellant sought to amend his statement of claim to allege a new misrepresentation regarding the credit union's failure to obtain property appraisals.

The trial judge refused the amendment, finding it asserted a new cause of action that was discoverable years earlier and was therefore statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, confirming that the proposed amendment relied on a different act and a separate failure to disclose, which was not encompassed by the original pleadings.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the stabbing death of her former boyfriend.

At trial, the Crown cross-examined its own key witness on a prior inconsistent statement without bringing an application under section 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, and subsequently used the inconsistency to impeach the witness's credibility during closing submissions.

The trial judge permitted this use and instructed the jury accordingly.

The Court of Appeal held that this improper cross-examination and the subsequent use of the evidence prejudiced the appellant's defence, rendering the trial unfair.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding them only $5,000 in damages against their former real estate lawyer for a title defect error.

The trial judge found the lawyer breached his duty of care but concluded the appellants' significant claims for reduction in property value, carrying costs, and business losses were not caused by the title defect, but rather by the appellants overpricing the property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation, damages, or the exclusion of expert evidence.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law application regarding child support for failing to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the remedy was not excessive given the appellant had breached six previous orders and received multiple warnings.

The court also upheld the motion judge's award of full recovery costs based on a finding of bad faith.

The appellants were convicted of drug trafficking offences following the execution of search warrants at two condominiums and a vehicle.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing that the searches violated their s. 8 Charter rights and that a delay in facilitating access to counsel violated s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal found that the searches were lawful, with the warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances.

Although the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a four-hour delay in providing access to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), noting the breach was an isolated incident rather than systemic.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant lawyer and his firm appealed an order directing the assessment of 14 accounts rendered to the respondent over an 11-year period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the application judge erred in finding 'special circumstances' under s. 4 of the Solicitors Act to justify assessing the older, previously paid accounts.

The assessment was limited to the final three accounts, which were in dispute regarding the allocation of settlement funds, and the respondent's corporation was added as a client on the assessment.

The appellant appealed an order requiring it to reimburse the respondents for legal fees incurred in collecting on promissory notes.

The appellant argued that the fees were related to a global settlement of disputes rather than collection, and that the application judge erred in awarding full indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the enforcement efforts were inextricably linked to the settlement discussions, and that the application judge properly reduced the claimed fees by a third to arrive at a reasonable amount as required by the general security agreement.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of cross-appeal.

The responding party opposed the motion, raising concerns about delay.

The court found that extending the time with appropriate directions would not delay the scheduling and hearing of the appeal.

The motion was granted, and the moving party was ordered to serve and file its notice of cross-appeal by a specified date.

The respondent was largely successful in defending her former husband's appeal and pursuing her cross-appeal.

She sought full recovery costs of $40,422.60.

The Court of Appeal awarded her costs of $38,000, ordering that 25% of the award be enforced by the Family Responsibility Office as it was proportionate to the support-related issues at stake.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and drug offences, and his sentence of ten years' imprisonment.

At trial, the Crown improperly cross-examined the appellant regarding his brother's immunity under s. 13 of the Charter.

The trial judge stopped the questioning, refused a stay of proceedings, and provided a strong limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding the limiting instruction sufficient to cure any prejudice.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in rejecting hearsay evidence of historical sexual abuse as a mitigating factor.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for attempted murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

He argued the Board unreasonably found he posed a significant threat to public safety, applied the wrong legal test, and acted unfairly by copying portions of its reasons from a previous year's hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence of the appellant's treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and recent aggressive behaviour supported the significant threat finding.

While the Board's copying of previous reasons was ill-advised, the reasons as a whole demonstrated a firm grasp of the current evidence and did not warrant a new hearing.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that renewed his conditional discharge.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing the Board's finding that he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant posed a significant threat due to the risk of non-compliance with his medication if discharged absolutely without community monitoring.