Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

An insurance priority dispute concerning whether an automobile insurance policy issued by Elite remained in force at the time of an accident.

Elite sent a purported notice of non-renewal in August 2010 for a policy ending September 20, 2010, based on the claimant's failure to register for a data-transmitting device within 12 months.

The arbitrator found the notice premature and that the policy had been terminated by mutual agreement of the parties despite the statutory continuation provision in section 236(5) of the Insurance Act.

The Superior Court appeal judge reversed, finding section 236(5) required the policy to remain in force.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's decision reasonable on both issues: the notice was premature and the policy was effectively terminated by the parties' conduct.

The appellant appealed his sentence for aggravated assault and breach of probation.

Following sentencing discussions, counsel had agreed on a sentencing range of 18 to 24 months less pretrial custody credit.

However, due to inadvertence during submissions, the appellant's counsel asked for 15 months in addition to pretrial custody rather than less pretrial custody, resulting in an effective sentence of over 28 months.

The Crown agreed that the sentence should be set aside and that the agreed-upon range was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and imposed a sentence of 18 months less pretrial custody credit (414 days), resulting in a final sentence of four months from the date of sentencing.

This family law appeal concerns the variation and termination of spousal support following a 2008 consent order.

The respondent sought to reduce spousal support from $3,000 to $1,000 per month effective June 2013 and terminate it one year later, claiming material changes in both parties' financial circumstances.

The trial judge found material changes in both parties' circumstances and imputed income to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while there was a material change in the appellant's financial circumstances, there was no material change in the respondent's circumstances as his income remained consistent.

The court also found the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the matrimonial home, determining that the parties' true bargain was reflected in a secret trust agreement rather than the consent order.

The court reduced spousal support but declined to terminate it, consistent with the parties' original agreement.

Appeal from a trial judgment finding that a nurse and hospital were liable for negligence in the care of a newborn who developed kernicterus due to untreated hyperbilirubinemia.

The trial judge found the nurse breached the standard of care by failing to report jaundice to the resident physician and that but for this negligence, phototherapy would have been commenced earlier, preventing the development of kernicterus.

The appellants challenged the causation findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that the trial judge properly inferred causation based on expert evidence and the factual progression of the infant's condition, and that the appellants could not escape liability by pointing to hypothetical negligence of other physicians.

The appellant, the mother of Monica Gaumont, appealed a judgment appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as guardian of Monica's property and personal care.

Monica, age 30, has a form of epilepsy with progressive seizures that have caused cognitive regression.

The application judge found Monica lacked capacity and appointed the PGT as guardian, allowing the appellant to reapply upon important changes in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no procedural unfairness, no error regarding the capacity finding, and no merit to arguments concerning a power of attorney or alternative guardians.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed from a summary judgment order dismissing his action to collect an account for legal services in the amount of $51,493.37.

The appellant's sole ground of appeal was that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation by the respondents regarding the release of the account or during the assessment proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's findings of fact, which were fully supported by evidence, including that the respondent was aware of the appellant's outstanding action 14 months before signing the release, that the appellant was aware of the assessment proceeding, and that the respondents were entitled to rely on counsel's representations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000.

A class action was brought against an auditor for negligently auditing Form 9 reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission that falsely confirmed a securities dealer's compliance with segregation and minimum capital requirements.

The dealer subsequently failed and investors lost millions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the class, finding the auditor owed a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that no duty of care existed because there was insufficient proximity between the auditor and the class members.

The class members never saw or knew of the Form 9 reports, made no representations to them, and the interposition of the OSC and the dealer between the auditor and the class rendered the relationship too remote.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining to approve the sale of property (79 Bramsteele Road, Brampton, Ontario) by a court-appointed receiver to the appellant.

The property was owned by a religious charitable organization that became insolvent.

The receiver entered into an agreement to sell the property to the appellant, but the motion judge declined approval, instead establishing a process to permit assignment of the first mortgage held by the respondent mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in applying the second Soundair duty by failing to properly consider the interests of creditors and the appellant as purchaser.

The court allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for armed robbery and related offences, as well as his eight-year sentence.

The trial judge found that police unlawfully detained the appellant by deliberately delaying his appearance before a justice of the peace beyond the 24-hour requirement under section 503 of the Criminal Code.

However, the trial judge declined to stay proceedings, finding that the integrity of the justice system would be better served by proceeding to trial on the merits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, correcting errors in the application of the Kienapple principle and reducing the global sentence to five years concurrent with one-year sentences on related charges.

This appeal concerns the assessment of damages for sexual assault in a civil action.

The respondent, a physician, alleged that the appellant, a colleague and friend, sexually assaulted her at her home in 1999.

The trial judge found the assault proven and awarded general damages of $175,000, punitive damages of $25,000, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The appellant appealed, challenging the non-pecuniary damages award and the punitive damages award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's assessment of damages or her decision to award punitive damages.

The trustees of the estate of Anne Emily Janicek brought an application for advice and directions regarding the construction of the will's provisions concerning the sale of the "Home Farm." The will provided that the farm could be purchased by any of the testatrix's children, or a combination thereof, at 75% of appraised fair market value within one year of death, with an Agreement of Purchase and Sale to be concluded within that period.

If no such agreement was reached, the trustees could sell the farm at their discretion.

The trustees received competing individual offers from four children within the prescribed period but were uncertain which to accept and sought court guidance.

The application judge ordered that the trustees could sell the farm to whomever they chose at any price in their sole discretion.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding the will did not require the trustees to sell to him and that the trustees had acted appropriately.

Justice van Rensburg dissented, finding the application judge erred by failing to address whether the trustees had frustrated the appellant's purchase attempt and by failing to apply principles of will interpretation to determine the testatrix's intention regarding competing offers.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

This appeal concerns a franchise dispute where the motion judge granted partial summary judgment for rescission of a franchise agreement and damages of $964,805.33 against the franchisor.

The central issue was whether the franchisor failed to disclose earnings projections that were allegedly shown to the franchisees at a May 2010 meeting, constituting material non-disclosure under the Arthur Wishart Act.

The appellate court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the rescission judgment and damages award on the basis that the motion judge erred in determining the key disputed factual issue on contradictory evidence without oral testimony.

However, the court upheld the motion judge's determination that the rescission claim was timely, as the limitation period ran from the replacement agreement signed in September 2010 rather than the original agreement signed in June 2010.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment finding the indemnifier liable under an indemnity agreement for unpaid rent and related losses.

The indemnifier challenged the finding of liability based on alleged pre-contractual misrepresentations by the landlord regarding park improvements.

The court upheld the finding of liability, rejecting the misrepresentation defence.

On the quantum issue, the court dismissed the indemnifier's appeal regarding restoration costs and legal fees, but allowed the landlord's cross-appeal to extend liability for future rent through the end of the lease term, subject to mitigation credits.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim against his father for an order permitting him to see his mother, and an order declaring him a vexatious litigant.

The Court of Appeal upheld both orders, finding no basis for the court to compel a mentally competent adult to require another mentally competent adult to interact with a third family member.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the vexatious litigant designation based on the application judge's thorough reasons.

An appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition continuing his detention at Brockville Mental Health Centre following a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge, arguing that the Board's conclusion that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, particularly regarding the change in his diagnosis from schizophrenia to antisocial personality disorder and the role of cannabis use.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable based on the revised diagnosis, evidence linking cannabis use to psychotic symptoms, a history of substance abuse, and a pattern of aggressive and violent behavior.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his civil action as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant had been charged with stunt driving and related offences under the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in the seizure of his vehicle for seven days.

He subsequently sued for $75,000 in punitive damages and $2,100 in travel expenses, alleging the seizure constituted theft without his consent or court order.

The motion judge found the claim had no legal merit and dismissed it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the claim was incapable of success on its face and rejecting arguments that the seizure violated Charter rights or the property rights of the vehicle owner.

The appellant father appealed from an order striking his pleadings in a motion to change child support.

The parties had previously settled all issues arising from their marriage breakdown, with the father's income deemed at $120,000 per year and agreeing to contribute $1,000 monthly toward section 7 expenses for five years.

After the five-year term ended, the father ceased payments.

The mother initiated a motion to change seeking continued section 7 contributions.

The father opposed and sought a refund of approximately $66,000.

The motion judge struck the father's pleadings after he failed to comply with undertakings to provide proof of the source of approximately $1,169,000 in deposits, despite being requested to do so on five occasions and receiving clear directions on compliance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's decision dismissing their motor vehicle accident action from 2003.

The appellants, who were self-represented and elderly, sought a further adjournment of their jury trial, citing age and health issues.

The trial judge declined the adjournment and dismissed the action after a lengthy history of delay, multiple changes of counsel, and failure to comply with court orders.

The appellants failed to provide medical evidence supporting their request for adjournment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the discretion to grant or deny an adjournment was exercised judicially on proper principles, balancing the interests of all parties and the administration of justice.

The appellant father appealed a custody and access order from the Superior Court of Justice concerning his three sons.

The motions judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent mother, awarding her sole custody of two of the three children and ordering that the father's access and communication with the children be at the children's discretion.

The father challenged the appropriateness of summary judgment, the weight given to the custody assessment, the best interests analysis, and alleged Charter violations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's decision to proceed by summary judgment, his consideration of the evidence, his analysis of the children's best interests, and his costs award.