Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her evidence that she feared police would seize her money as proceeds of crime after returning it the previous day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inference was reasonably available on the evidence and there was no basis to interfere with the credibility assessment.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claim for damages arising from the expropriation of their lands by the respondent municipalities and the subsequent transfer of those lands to Toyota for an auto plant development.

The appellants argued the transfer to Toyota at the expropriation price constituted an illegal bonus under s. 106 of the Municipal Act, which should invalidate the expropriation and entitle them to damages reflecting the lands' increased value.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the expropriation and sale were separate transactions, and even if s. 106 was breached, it would not invalidate the expropriation or confer a right to damages beyond the fair value provided under the Expropriations Act.

The appellant appealed a net sentence of two years and seven months imposed following a guilty plea to possession of a prohibited firearm with ammunition.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in drawing unwarranted inferences, imposing an excessive sentence, and failing to give adequate credit for harsh bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fell within the appropriate range given the appellant's prior record, breach of a weapons prohibition, and the nature of the firearm (a sawed-off shotgun stored with ammunition).

The appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking approximately 26 pounds of marijuana found in the trunk of a car he was driving.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in relying on his knowledge of a small amount of marijuana in the console and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence supported the inference that he knew about the marijuana in the trunk.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was fit given the amount of drugs seized.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice which held that the Landlord and Tenant Board was not a suable entity.

The Court of Appeal found no error of law in the motions judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's refusal to dismiss the respondent's application for child support under the Family Law Act.

The appellant argued that the respondent was required to proceed under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act and that Ontario was not the convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act provides an alternative procedure and does not bar a claim under the Family Law Act if the court has jurisdiction.

The court found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the child's lifelong residence in the province.

The appellant also failed to establish that another forum was clearly more convenient.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their actions challenging the validity of their mother's wills and inter vivos transfers of land to the respondent.

The appellants alleged undue influence and fraud.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge failed to properly use the expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge made conclusory determinations on highly contested facts without conducting a necessary credibility analysis, particularly regarding allegedly fraudulent invoices used to justify the property transfers.

The summary judgment was set aside and the matter directed to trial.

The applicant sought to review a single judge's decision dismissing her request for a stay of a driving prohibition pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not obtained leave under section 680 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three counts related to child prostitution and his sentence of four and a half years.

He argued the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment to call a witness and that the trial judge's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion regarding the adjournment and conducted the trial impartially.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly applied the principle of totality and the Tang factors, resulting in a fit sentence.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, assault, intimidation, and uttering death threats following an altercation with his girlfriend's landlord and the building caretaker.

He appealed only the criminal harassment conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider all necessary elements of the offence and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant's conduct was harassing, that he possessed the requisite mens rea, and that the elderly complainant's fear for her safety was objectively reasonable.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 14 months and 28 days for six offences, including possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to weigh mitigating factors such as his mental health and addiction, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judge's consideration of the appellant's significant criminal record and noting that hydromorphone trafficking attracts serious sentences.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that revoked his transfer to a less secure hospital and maintained him at a secure facility.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's surprise attack on a co-patient, which changed his risk profile.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's conclusion reasonably supported the revocation and that maintaining the appellant at the secure facility was the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, arguing the Board erred in concluding he continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable based on all the circumstances.

The appellant was arrested without a warrant for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police received tips from confidential informants and observed him discarding a digital scale with cocaine residue.

A frisk search yielded cellphones and money but no drugs, prompting a strip search at the police station which uncovered drugs hidden between his buttocks.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the arrest and the decision to strip search were lawful.

However, the Court found that the strip search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter, because the door was left open, the search was videotaped without consent, and the appellant was not given the option to remove the drugs himself.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's testimony about the timing of events and whether she blacked out.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was fully alive to the timing issues and gave thorough reasons for finding the complainant credible.

The sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, challenging the scope of a no-contact provision that included the Toronto Star.

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to justify the continued inclusion of the Toronto Star in the condition, noting the appellant's history of threatening and harassing behaviour targeting media agencies.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications proposed by the respondents.

The Crown appealed from a jury verdict acquitting the accused of sexual assault.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of the accused's sexual fantasies about the complainant, allowing cross-examination of the complainant regarding prior sexual activity under section 276(2) of the Criminal Code, and inadequately charging the jury on the requirement to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent under section 273.2.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's evidentiary rulings were reasonable and legally sound, and noting the jury charge used the exact, legally correct language suggested by the Crown at trial.

The appellant was convicted of four counts of fraud over $5,000 after persuading victims to give him money to invest, which was never returned.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred by dismissing his Charter application regarding alleged police misconduct without a voir dire, and by improperly assessing his father's defence evidence.

He also appealed his 12-month custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Kutynec threshold to the Charter application and made no error in assessing the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit for a large-scale fraud involving exploitation of relationships.

The appellant appealed a judgment regarding an estate dispute.

Both parties agreed the appeal should be allowed in part.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no bequest to the appellant of any interest in the cottage and the dismissal of her claim for damages.

However, the court found the motion judge erred by leaving the estate in limbo after the respondents were prepared to renounce being trustees.

The Court of Appeal modified the order to remove the respondents as trustees and appointed the appellant as trustee, with conditions on disposing of real property.

The respondents were ordered to pass accounts, and the appellant was ordered to return a bracelet and ring to the estate.

Costs of the motion below were fixed at $12,500 for the respondents, with no costs for the appeal.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to section 19(1.2)(a).