Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a young child, as well as his sentence of 21 months' imprisonment.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing post-offence conduct, provided insufficient reasons, and failed to consider the reliability of the child's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.(D.) framework, provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence, and adequately addressed reliability.

Leave to appeal the sentence was denied as it fell within the appropriate range.

The appellants purchased luxury hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel based on financial estimates provided by the developer, Talon.

The estimates projected significant returns but were based on uninformed opinions and understated expenses.

The appellants sued for misrepresentation.

The motion judge dismissed their claims, finding their reliance on the estimates unreasonable and barred by entire agreement clauses.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that reliance was reasonable and it would be unconscionable to enforce the exculpatory clauses given Talon's evasion of Securities Act protections.

The Court ordered rescission for one appellant and damages for the other.

The appellants, environmental groups, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their judicial review application challenging the vires of O. Reg. 176/13 under the Endangered Species Act, 2007.

The regulation provided exemptions from the Act's prohibitions.

The appellants argued the Minister failed to meet a statutory condition precedent by not considering the effect of the regulation on each individual species, and that the regulation's purpose was inconsistent with the Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Minister properly considered the effect on each species and the regulation was not inconsistent with the Act's purpose.

The respondent brought a motion in his family law proceedings to compel his former solicitor to deliver his complete file to his new lawyer.

The former solicitor resisted, claiming a solicitor's lien for unpaid fees.

The motion judge ordered the file to be turned over temporarily for copying.

The former solicitor appealed.

During the appeal hearing, the parties agreed to a variation of the order allowing the former solicitor to retain original signed documents and provide electronic copies of electronic records.

The Court of Appeal varied the order accordingly and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death following a motor vehicle accident that killed his son.

He argued the verdict was unreasonable and inconsistent with his acquittal for impaired driving, asserting that his alcohol consumption should not have been considered.

The Court of Appeal held that alcohol consumption short of impairment is relevant to the mens rea of dangerous driving.

The court also rejected arguments regarding Crown misconduct, jury misdirection, and pre-trial applications.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application and upheld the sentence of nine months' imprisonment, finding it was not demonstrably unfit.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage during which they built a successful recreational equipment business.

The trial judge ordered the husband to pay $9,584 per month in spousal support, attributing $400,000 in annual income to him based on past corporate profits.

The husband appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Child Support Guidelines to determine the husband's income and by adopting an unreasonable approach to estimating future corporate profits.

The Court reassessed the husband's income at $214,872 and the wife's income at $109,535, and substituted a spousal support order of $1,500 per month.

The appellant, a former student at Carleton University and employee of The Source, sued Carleton and BCE Inc. for conspiracy, wrongful termination, and various torts after receiving a failing grade and being terminated from his employment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against BCE Inc. and struck the claims against Carleton as an abuse of process, finding they were an attempt to re-litigate an internal academic appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the claims against the university constituted an abuse of process.

The Court also dismissed motions to set aside previous orders refusing to strike the respondents' affidavits.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought trial costs of over $200,000.

The respondent opposed, arguing the appellant failed to provide detailed dockets and that costs should be reduced for various reasons, including the extra time required for a bilingual proceeding.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's costs outline provided sufficient detail and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The Court applied a 20% discount to the claimed fees, deducted costs for a motion the respondent had won, and excluded one unsupported disbursement.

The Court awarded the appellant $162,239.25 in trial costs and amended the previous appeal costs order to include $16,683.65 in disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action under Rules 57.03(2) and 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to pay outstanding costs awards.

The appellant argued that some costs were discharged by a previous order, raised historical grievances, and alleged bias against the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these arguments, noting the motion judge applied the correct test and appropriately exercised his discretion given the appellant offered no reason for non-payment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the summary judgment dismissal of her motion to change a consent final order that terminated spousal support.

She argued the motions judge erred in ruling third-party letters inadmissible, placing the onus on her to adduce expert evidence, finding the claim statute-barred under s. 17(10) of the Divorce Act, and failing to accord procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the medical evidence was admitted, it did not establish that the alleged worsening of her medical condition was related to the marriage as required by s. 17(10).

The self-represented appellant appealed a final judgment in family law proceedings, arguing the trial judge erred by refusing her requests for an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, noting the trial judge confirmed the appellant was prepared to proceed at the outset and properly rejected a mid-trial adjournment request lacking medical documentation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence.

During the hearing, she withdrew her appeal against the conviction.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's admission of the appellant's confession or the finding of guilt.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge considered all relevant principles and circumstances, and that the sentence imposed was reasonable.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and sexual offences against child complainants, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The court held that trial counsel's performance fell far below the standard of reasonably competent representation, including inadequate trial preparation, failure to use prior inconsistent statements, failure to bring or properly address a s. 276 application, and failure to respond competently to similar fact or discreditable conduct evidence.

The Crown conceded that the convictions relating to one complainant were unreliable, but argued the assault conviction involving another complainant should stand.

The court rejected that distinction, finding the incompetence pervasive and the miscarriage of justice engaged both verdict reliability and trial fairness.

All convictions were quashed and a new trial was ordered on all counts.

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after being found at a marijuana grow-op.

He told police he believed his boss had a licence to produce marijuana at that location.

The trial judge convicted him as an aider and abettor, finding the defence had an onus to establish the honest belief defence and could only do so if the appellant had seen a licence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in placing an onus on the appellant and that the Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant knew his boss did not have a licence.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a conviction entered by the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, finding no strong arguments that the lower court fell into legal error and declining to repeat the analysis performed by the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to review an order of a chambers judge, which had denied her requests for further trial transcripts at public expense, extended her release pending appeal to the scheduled hearing date, and refused to adjourn the appeal.

At the hearing of the motion, the applicant also sought an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the adjournment request, noting a history of last-minute requests.

The Court also dismissed the motion to review the chambers judge's order, finding no reason to interfere with the decisions regarding the transcripts, release terms, or the peremptory hearing date.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault after having sexual intercourse with a highly intoxicated complainant.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to properly account for his use of an interpreter when assessing his credibility and finding he feigned confusion during cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or her conclusion that the appellant's evidence was replete with inconsistencies.

The appellant sought a review of a single judge's order dismissing a motion for bail and refusing to expedite an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding.

The appellant had since been released on bail, rendering the habeas corpus proceeding moot.

The appellant also sought to have outstanding criminal charges dismissed due to alleged improper solitary confinement, which the court noted was a matter for the trial court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to review and dismissed the underlying appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal was abandoned.

On the sentence appeal, the parties agreed the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's criminal record.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the fitness of the sentence based on the actual record, which included 11 prior convictions for break and enter over 25 years.

The Court concluded the total sentence of 820 days was fit and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, seeking to introduce fresh evidence and arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the complainant's motivation to lie to immigration authorities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence inadmissible as it was available at trial and added nothing.

The Court also held the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence, having reasonably concluded the complainant's only agenda was to tell the truth about the abuse.