Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent regarding a loan.

The respondent had provided evidence of the loan, an amortization schedule, and a record of payments.

The appellants admitted to the loan but claimed they made additional payments by cash and cheque, which were unsupported by receipts.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge carefully analyzed the evidence and correctly concluded that the appellants failed to put their best foot forward.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

During the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, the appellant and his friends were walking down a public street intending to demonstrate in support of animal rights.

They were stopped by police officers who demanded to search their bags as a condition of proceeding further.

The appellant refused and was grabbed and pushed by an officer.

The Court of Appeal held that the police conduct was not authorized by the common law ancillary powers doctrine, as it was not reasonably necessary to preserve the peace.

The court found that the police violated the appellant's common law right to travel unimpeded and his freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The court also held that the officer committed the tort of battery, as he lacked lawful authority and the contact was unnecessary.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's reliance on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant posed a significant risk of violence to hospital staff if he remained in a medium secure facility without a medication change.

The court found it was reasonable for the Board to rely on evidence regarding enhanced security and potential privileges at Waypoint.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months for break and enter, arguing the trial judge should have imposed consecutive sentences of less than six months each to preserve his right to appeal a removal order under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was aware of the immigration consequences and the sentence was reasonable given the severity of the offences and the appellant's record.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge identified and applied the correct three-part test and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed on all elements.

It was not in the interest of justice to set aside the default judgment.

The Toronto Chief of Police issued an order requiring suspended officers to report twice daily at police headquarters.

The Toronto Police Association filed a policy grievance challenging the reasonableness of the order.

The arbitrator concluded the order was not arbitrable as it fell within the Chief's exclusive statutory authority over operational matters.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Board's appeal, agreeing that the arbitrator's interpretation of the Police Services Act and the collective agreement was unreasonable, particularly her failure to apply established jurisprudence regarding the balance between management rights and working conditions.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and could not be managed by a conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence, particularly given the appellant's ongoing major mental illness, medication non-compliance, and lack of insight.

The appellant appealed his conviction and a forfeiture order, arguing that errors and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO) for search warrants invalidated them.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the drafting errors were innocent mistakes.

Even assuming negligence, the Court held that the warrants could have issued based on the totality of the circumstances, including post-tip surveillance and prior police knowledge, after excising erroneous information and including omitted details about the confidential informant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following an appeal, the court received written costs submissions.

The appellant had made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Adopting the joint submissions of the respondent and the appellant's trustee in bankruptcy, the court ordered costs of $15,000 in favour of the respondent.

The appellant franchisor appealed a declaration that a clause in its franchise agreements requiring a general release as a condition of assignment was void and unenforceable under s. 11 of the Arthur Wishart Act.

The Court of Appeal held that while the clause was not void ab initio, it was unenforceable because it required a release of statutory claims.

The Court declined to apply notional severance to read down the clause to apply only to non-statutory claims, finding that doing so would subvert the protective purpose of the Act and invite franchisors to draft overly broad releases.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations against the respondents under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The motion judge had found the pleadings lacked sufficient material facts to establish that the respondents acted in concert with the author of the defamatory emails.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that when the amended statement of claim was read generously alongside the particulars and the incorporated emails, sufficient material facts were pleaded to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The order dismissing the action was set aside, and the appellants were granted leave to amend their pleadings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for a property tax exemption for premises it leases in four buildings.

The appellant argued that section 10 of the YMCA Act, which exempts 'buildings, lands... of the said association', should be interpreted broadly to include leased premises.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a leasehold interest is not 'land' or 'property of' the association within the meaning of the Assessment Act and the YMCA Act.

The exemption requires an ownership interest, and the plain meaning of the statute does not extend to leased properties.

The appellants sued the respondent physicians for damages, including the difference between their actual legal fees and the costs awarded in prior proceedings regarding the withdrawal of life support, as well as damages for various torts based on a pre-litigation letter sent by the respondents' counsel.

The motion judge dismissed the action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the claim for legal fees was barred by issue estoppel and the tort claims were barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege, as the letter was intimately connected to contemplated judicial proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action for the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion after hospital staff improperly accessed patient records.

The defendants moved to strike the claim, arguing that the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) constitutes an exhaustive code that ousts the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that PHIPA does not create an exhaustive code.

The Act's language, its highly discretionary review procedure tailored for systemic issues, and its explicit contemplation of other proceedings indicate that the legislature did not intend to preclude common law claims for breach of privacy.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Information and Privacy Commissioner order.

The order required the Ministry to disclose records containing the full names of Family Responsibility Office (FRO) employees to a requester.

The appellants argued that disclosure posed a health and safety risk to the employees and conflicted with a prior Grievance Settlement Board order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Commissioner reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish a reasonable expectation of harm to the employees, and that the disclosure order did not conflict with the prior grievance settlement.

The landlord appealed a decision declaring its Notice to Vacate void and granting a permanent injunction restraining it from re-entering the leased premises.

The landlord sought to demolish the building and argued the lease limited the tenant's remedies to damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the limitation clause did not apply to the landlord's arbitrary repudiation and trespass, and upheld the permanent injunction as an appropriate remedy to protect the tenant's property rights.

The appellant sought to appeal a judgment disposing of claims under the Land Titles Act to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction, as section 27 of the Land Titles Act directs such appeals to the Divisional Court.

The court transferred the appeal and the related motion for leave to appeal costs to the Divisional Court pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, with a request to expedite the hearing.

The appellant unsecured creditor appealed a decision dismissing an appeal from a Deputy Registrar's refusal to lift a stay of proceedings under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Registrar had properly considered the equitable grounds to lift the stay and applied the correct test.

The applicant, a Francophone, was convicted of driving without insurance after his paralegal pled guilty on his behalf in English.

He appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice, where he was assisted by an interpreter and indicated he wanted a bilingual appeal and had experienced communication issues with his paralegal.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal after the applicant confirmed he had authorized the guilty plea.

The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing his language rights were violated.

The Court of Appeal granted leave, finding that whether a Francophone appellant is entitled to a bilingual appeal even if they did not request a bilingual trial raises an issue of public interest and the proper administration of justice.

The appellant appealed a decision striking her statement of claim against counsel for the Public Guardian and Trustee, who acted as her litigation guardian in prior litigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the action was a collateral attack on the prior proceedings and an abuse of process.

The court also dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal with costs.