Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The moving parties sought to review an order of a single judge dismissing their motion to expedite the hearing of two leave to appeal motions.

The underlying matters related to a Crown wardship order and a Habeas Corpus application.

The moving parties argued that as Aboriginal people, they had a right to have matters heard in a court of equity applying Aboriginal law, and that the children's aid society had no authority to apprehend their children.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no basis to interfere with the single judge's procedural ruling that the matters were not properly before the court.

Following a successful appeal where the appellant Estate successfully defended the respondent's claim for a one-half interest in a property, the court determined the costs for the proceedings in the court below.

The Estate sought partial indemnity costs of $169,508.

The court reduced this amount by $30,000 to account for two unsuccessful motions brought by the Estate during the litigation.

Costs were fixed at $134,478.68 payable by the respondent to the Estate.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $184,211.58 and declaring an equitable mortgage on their properties for unpaid corporate advances.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference from missing documentation, rejecting a non est factum defence, and finding joint and several liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, credibility assessments, or refusal to draw an adverse inference.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash an appeal.

The responding party argued the appeal should proceed, asserting the order below was not made on consent and the court lacked jurisdiction, while also appealing the costs component.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion and quashed the appeal, finding that the communication contemplated by the order below had already been sent, rendering the order spent and the appeal moot.

The court also noted that no leave to appeal costs had been sought.

The appellant applied for an order requiring consumer reporting agencies to remove debts over two years old from his credit report, arguing that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 should apply.

The application judge dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Limitations Act does not apply to the Consumer Reporting Act.

The passing of a limitation period precludes court enforcement but does not extinguish a debt, and the reporting of such debts is expressly contemplated by the Consumer Reporting Act.

The respondent, a convenience store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper after misreading the birth year on the shopper's identification due to 'human error'.

She was convicted of selling tobacco to a minor under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, but the summary conviction appeal court overturned the conviction, finding her honest mistake satisfied the statutory defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, holding that the statutory due diligence defence requires a reasonable belief formed after exercising reasonable care in reviewing the identification, which a mere unexplained human error does not satisfy.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing it was unfit and challenging the pre-trial custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was at the high end of the range but noted no error in principle, given the appellant's lengthy criminal record and the aggravating factor of committing the offence with his son.

The court also deferred to the trial judge's determination of pre-trial custody credit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board denying an absolute discharge and ordering a transfer to a less secure facility.

The hospital appellant argued the Board breached procedural fairness by ordering the transfer despite its objections.

The individual appellant argued the Board unreasonably rejected his treating physician's evidence that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the hospital received adequate notice but chose not to participate, and that the Board's findings regarding the individual's diagnosis and ongoing threat to public safety were reasonable.

The appellants, a truck driver and a trucking company, were convicted of possessing invasive fish without a licence after entering Canada with shipments of live invasive fish.

The summary conviction appeal judge ordered a new trial for the corporate appellant on the issue of identity and varied the driver's sentence.

Both appellants sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The corporate appellant argued the appeal judge should have entered an acquittal based on an unreasonable verdict, while the driver argued the courts below erred in assessing his due diligence defence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal for both, finding no errors of law or issues of general importance.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board transferring her to a secure forensic unit and revoking her community living privileges.

She argued the Board breached natural justice due to alleged conflicts of interest of two panel members and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted and that the Board's disposition was reasonable given the significant deterioration in the appellant's mental state and behaviour.

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving and sentenced to a one-year driving prohibition and a $1,200 fine.

He sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal, arguing the trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge erred in their allocation of delay periods under the Morin analysis for his s. 11(b) Charter application.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding the summary conviction appeal judge was entitled to review and characterize the reasons for delay, and no clear error of law or question of general significance was raised.

The appellant appealed her conviction for robbery arising from a drug transaction where the complainant was stabbed multiple times.

At trial, there was conflicting evidence regarding who was buying and selling the drugs, and what type of drugs were involved.

The trial judge convicted the appellant but failed to make specific findings of fact regarding what was stolen, which was necessary as the Crown had particularized the charge as stealing money.

The Court of Appeal found that while the verdict was not unreasonable, the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they did not address the charge as particularized.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and breach of probation arising from a drug transaction.

The trial judge had stayed an aggravated assault charge under the Kienapple principle.

The Court of Appeal quashed the robbery conviction but applied section 686(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code to dismiss the appeal by lifting the stay and entering a conviction for aggravated assault.

The court upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's self-defence claim, finding that stabbing the victim eight times was disproportionate to the threat.

The weapons dangerous conviction was stayed, and the matter was remitted for sentencing on the aggravated assault conviction.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence relating to causation and arrived at inconsistent verdicts by acquitting the other driver involved in the incident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge made specific factual findings supported by evidence, including that the appellant ignored repeated warnings to slow down, which distinguished his case from the co-accused.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the five-month custodial sentence was deemed fit.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault, uttering death threats, and firearm offences, as well as his nine-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the complainant and defence witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and sought independent confirmation for the complainant's testimony.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part only to correct an error in pre-sentence custody credit, granting enhanced credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, while upholding the overall sentence length.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring the respondent the beneficial owner of a half interest in a family home.

The house was purchased in 1974 with title taken in the names of two adult children, as the mother did not qualify for a mortgage.

The mother paid the deposit, mortgages, and expenses using pooled family resources and rental income.

The trial judge found the mother had no money of her own and rejected her resulting trust claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by conflating the mother's money with its source.

The Court held the mother was the sole beneficial owner by way of a purchase money resulting trust.

The appellant, who was found Not Criminally Responsible for breach of recognizance and criminal harassment, appealed the Ontario Review Board's decision to continue his conditional discharge.

He argued the finding that he posed a significant threat to public safety was unreasonable and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by evidence, including the appellant's lack of insight, refusal to take medication, and intended cannabis use, which experts testified would increase his risk of physical aggression.

The appellant was convicted of drug and breach charges after police found cocaine during a search.

The initial investigative detention on the street was lawful, but the police subsequently arbitrarily detained the appellant in a cruiser, failed to provide him with his right to counsel, and conducted two unreasonable searches, including a strip search where an officer gratuitously inflicted pain.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches but admitted the evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by treating the absence of systemic police misconduct as a mitigating factor, failing to consider the impact on the appellant's Charter rights, and overemphasizing the seriousness of the charges.

The evidence was excluded and acquittals were entered.

The appellant, Coliseum Inc., appealed a Superior Court decision that overturned an arbitrator's award in its favour regarding a commercial lease dispute with the City of Ottawa.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of Minutes of Settlement concerning the provision of an alternative site following the termination of Coliseum's lease at Frank Clair Stadium.

The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to review the application judge's decision to grant leave to appeal the arbitral award.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by substituting her own interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement, as the arbitrator's interpretation was reasonable and owed deference.

The appeal was allowed, and the arbitrator's award of $2,240,000 in damages was reinstated.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of attempting to possess a firearm without a licence.

The convictions were based entirely on text messages exchanged with a co-worker who was found smuggling firearms.

The Court of Appeal found that while one text message supported a reasonable inference of a prior agreement to obtain a firearm, the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's responses of 'Ok ok' to price quotes constituted agreements to purchase two specific firearms was unreasonable, especially since those specific firearms were not found in the co-worker's possession.

The appeal was allowed in part, and one of the two convictions was quashed.