Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The respondent sought specific performance of an asset purchase agreement for its restaurant.

At the hearing, the application judge denied specific performance but awarded restitution for unjust enrichment, despite the claim not being pleaded in the Notice of Application.

The application judge had also indicated during the hearing that he would not entertain the unpleaded restitution claim, leading the appellant to make no submissions on the issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, finding that the application judge's conduct denied the appellant procedural fairness and the right to know the case it had to meet.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay an equalization payment of $353,752.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing to exclude his 50% interest in a corporation from his net family property as a gift and inheritance from his late father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the husband failed to meet his evidentiary burden under section 4(3) of the Family Law Act to prove the shares were actually paid for by his father and thus capable of being gifted.

The appellant law firm appealed a motion judge's decision reducing its contingency fee from approximately $4.1 million to $3.25 million following a $14 million medical malpractice settlement.

The motion judge found the 2018 contingency fee agreement was neither fair nor reasonable under the Solicitors Act, noting the client's vulnerability and the agreement's non-compliance with regulatory requirements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement was not fair at the time it was entered into, given the potential for fees to exceed the client's recovery and the failure to adequately explain the need for court approval.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his detention in a Secure Forensic Unit and retaining an electronics supervision clause.

The appellant argued the disposition was not the least onerous and restrictive option and that the Board improperly rejected a joint submission to remove the electronics clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds, finding the Board's decisions reasonable given the appellant's recent elopements and worsening auditory hallucinations.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to reinstate clauses for indirectly supervised and accompanied privileges, which the Board had mistakenly removed.

In a delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice action, the defendant physician appealed findings on liability only.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s negligence and causation analysis and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed and the liability determination stood.

The appellants appealed an order declaring them vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The application judge found that the individual appellant, who was the sole officer and employee of the corporate appellant, had serially engaged in vexatious litigation since 2017, including bringing proceedings outside the court's jurisdiction and failing to pay significant costs awards.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's application of the relevant factors and concluding that the order against both the corporation and the individual directing its litigation was entirely justified.

The appellants appealed an order declaring them vexatious litigants under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The application judge found the respondent had standing and applied the Lang Michener test, noting the appellants' history of meritless litigation against a former client who is a party under a disability.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error and dismissed the appeal, confirming the vexatious litigant order applies to the appellants in their personal capacity.

The moving party sought panel review of two single-judge motion decisions: one requiring security for costs and payment of costs, and one refusing leave to obtain and file a transcript for the review.

The panel held that no error in principle, unreasonable result, legal error, or misapprehension of evidence was shown.

Both review motions were dismissed.

Appeal from dismissal of breach of contract claim for attendant care services.

The appellant alleged an oral agreement modifying a fixed-rate compensation arrangement, claiming a balance owing of over $576,000.

The trial judge found no documentary evidence of the oral agreement, ruled certain evidence inadmissible, and found invoices and timesheets to be exaggerated or fabricated.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis or conclusions and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay $495,888.39 in common expense arrears and granting vacant possession to the respondent condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's use of enhanced fact-finding powers to resolve credibility issues and reject the appellant's claim of having paid in cash.

The Court also declined to entertain a new limitations defence raised for the first time on appeal.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred by using the oppression remedy to expand the respondent's registered condominium lien to cover unsecured arrears, as doing so could prejudice third-party creditors.

The self-represented appellant mother sought leave to appeal a costs order made following a lengthy family law trial in which the respondent father was largely successful.

The trial judge had awarded the father net costs of $20,000 after setting off support arrears, noting the father's reasonable offers to settle and the mother's bad faith conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the costs award was not plainly wrong.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal raised four grounds: (1) whether the first case management judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the affiant; (2) whether the second case management judge erred in dismissing the motion to relitigate the cross-examination application; (3) whether the application judge erred in rejecting the Charter section 8 challenge to the search warrant; and (4) whether the application judge erred in admitting evidence despite a violation of the appellant's section 10(b) rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the convictions.

A reference to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning whether legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada.

The majority (Tulloch C.J.O., Gillese, Hourigan and Dawe JJ.A.) answered affirmatively, finding that section 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code permits Ontario to conduct and manage a lottery scheme with international pooled liquidity, provided Ontario continues to conduct and manage the Ontario-based aspects of the scheme in accordance with provincial law.

The majority rejected the application of the real and substantial connection test and distinguished the Earth Future decisions.

Van Rensburg J.A. dissented, arguing that the Proposed Model would contravene the Criminal Code because it would require Ontario to conduct and manage aspects of the lottery scheme outside Ontario's territorial boundaries, contrary to the plain meaning of "in that province" in section 207(1)(a).

The appellant was convicted of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault against his stepdaughter beginning when she was 15 years old, with violations occurring over approximately 20 months.

The trial judge relied heavily on an audio recording surreptitiously captured by the complainant in her bedroom on November 3, 2019.

The appellant appealed on grounds that the trial judge unfairly amplified the audio recording during deliberations, misapprehended its contents, misapprehended evidence relating to chronology of events, erred in assessing credibility of both the complainant and appellant, and misused a prior consistent statement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no trial fairness issues, no misapprehension of evidence, and no credibility errors.

International medical graduates appealed the dismissal of their breach of contract action against the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

The appellants sought a declaration that they had passed the Royal College's 2020 qualifying psychiatry exam and were entitled to certification for independent practice.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding that the Royal College's 6.5% downward adjustment of exam scores was psychometrically justified.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because she failed to meaningfully engage with contradictory expert evidence, did not address the breach of contract claim, and did not analyze whether the parties had entered into an enforceable contract or whether the Royal College breached its duty of good faith performance.

The appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and weapons-related offences.

The narcotics and weapons were found in her bedroom during a search warrant execution.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding she possessed the narcotics, suggesting a reasonable alternative inference that another individual in the room possessed them.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and reasonably concluded the alternative theory was implausible.

The trial judge's credibility findings regarding the other individual's testimony were entitled to deference.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency against his niece and nephew.

He appealed on the basis that his Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) was violated.

The trial lasted 660 days from the swearing of the information to the end of closing submissions, exceeding the Jordan threshold of 548 days by 112 days.

The trial judge dismissed the section 11(b) application, finding that after deducting defence delay and exceptional circumstances, the net delay fell just short of the threshold.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made errors in calculating defence delay and pandemic-related delay.

After correcting these errors, the net delay was 571 days, exceeding the Jordan threshold by 23 days.

The court set aside the convictions and stayed the proceedings.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder for shooting and killing Ryan Kabuya-Ntumba during a confrontation in Ottawa's ByWard Market on July 1, 2019.

The central issue at trial was whether the appellant acted in self-defence.

The jury rejected the self-defence claim and convicted the appellant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence from an eyewitness and challenged the trial judge's jury instructions on self-defence and post-offence conduct.

The majority dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it not reasonably capable of belief, and dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

Justice Copeland dissented on the fresh evidence issue, concluding the evidence was reasonably capable of belief and warranted a new trial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and counselling to commit murder after his ex-girlfriend was shot with a concealed crossbow.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the appellant's strong financial and emotional motive, his request to an ex-biker friend to find a hitman, and his counter-surveillance conduct after the attack.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no palpable and overriding error in assessing the victim's testimony, no improper reliance on police opinion evidence, and that the verdicts were reasonable given the compelling circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal from an order refusing to set aside a default judgment against Len’s Cove Marina Ltd. The court found that the motion judge erred in weighing the relevant factors for setting aside a default judgment, particularly by failing to recognize the presence of an arguable defence and a plausible explanation for the default.

The court emphasized that the interests of justice favoured a determination on the merits and set aside the default judgment, granting the Marina 30 days to deliver its statement of defence.