Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

The appellants appealed from a judgment made at an undefended trial, arguing they were not properly served with notice of two preceding orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had actual knowledge of the proceedings and had failed to move to set aside the underlying orders.

The court noted that an order made without notice is not a nullity but remains an order of the court until set aside.

The appellant, a resident of the United States, appealed the dismissal of her motion to dismiss or stay an action on a debt for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent, an Ontario resident, sued the appellant for repayment of a loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the contract was made in Ontario when the respondent received telephone confirmation of the acceptance of her offer to lend funds.

This established a presumptive connecting factor for jurisdiction simpliciter under the Van Breda framework, which the appellant failed to rebut.

The plaintiff's action was administratively dismissed for delay twice.

The defendant consented to setting aside the first dismissal but refused for the second.

The master dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the second dismissal, finding the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that the master erred in requiring affirmative evidence to rebut presumed prejudice.

The defendant's own conduct, including consenting to the first dismissal and engaging in settlement discussions, rebutted any presumption of prejudice, and the finality principle was not engaged because the plaintiff moved promptly.

The appellant husband appealed judgments in a debt action and a matrimonial proceeding.

In the debt action, the trial judge found the husband jointly liable with his former wife for three loans advanced by her father.

In the matrimonial proceeding, the trial judge ordered spousal support, child support including section 7 expenses, and determined equalization amounts without discounting the wife's debts to her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions or assessment of credibility.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences after police found him in the backyard of a townhouse while responding to a 911 call.

The police placed him under investigative detention for trespassing and, after observing suspicious movements indicating he might be armed, conducted a safety search that revealed a loaded handgun and drugs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the safety search was unlawful and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the safety search was justified by a reasonable belief that officer safety was at stake, and upholding the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence despite minor s. 10 Charter breaches.

The respondent submitted a claim for long-term disability benefits under a group insurance policy, which was denied.

After exhausting the internal appeal process, she commenced an action.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under both the contractual and statutory limitation periods.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the contractual limitation period ambiguous and that the statutory period began only when the final appeal was denied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing the contractual language was unclear and deferring to the motion judge's factual finding on when the claim was discovered.

The Court also clarified that a group disability policy is not a 'business agreement' under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his medical malpractice action.

The motion judge dismissed the action because the appellant failed to provide an expert report establishing causation or a breach of the standard of care, despite court-ordered timetables.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no denial of procedural fairness and confirming that the appellant failed to meet his obligation to put his best foot forward by providing evidence on the essential elements of his claim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following a stabbing at a nightclub.

At trial, he claimed he acted in self-defence.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by reversing a ruling that excluded prejudicial portions of his police statements, and by improperly instructing the jury on post-offence conduct and exculpatory statements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly reweighed the probative value of the police statements after the defence put the officer's conduct in issue, and that the jury instructions on post-offence conduct and reasonable doubt were sufficient.

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed the Chief Justice's summary dismissal of his complaint against a Case Management Master.

The appellant alleged the Master lacked integrity and impartiality, and that the Chief Justice exceeded her jurisdiction and denied him procedural fairness by asking the Master for comments without disclosing them or referring the matter to a committee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Chief Justice had clear authority under s. 86.2(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to dispose of groundless complaints summarily and was not precluded from seeking the Master's comments.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing an international arbitration award, arguing it was denied procedural fairness when the application proceeded in its absence.

The appellant had previously terminated its solicitors' retainer and indicated an intent to follow different channels.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding no adequate record to support the procedural fairness claim.

The court noted that the appropriate procedure to raise the issue is a motion to set aside the order under Rule 38.11 in the Superior Court.

The appellant, a deaf individual with limited communication skills, was involuntarily committed under the Mental Health Act and detained in a maximum security psychiatric facility for 19 years.

He challenged the constitutionality of the involuntary committal provisions under s. 7 of the Charter and alleged a violation of his s. 15(1) equality rights due to inadequate sign language interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that the Mental Health Act violates s. 7 when applied to long-term detainees because the Consent and Capacity Board lacks the authority to ensure that liberty is restricted no more than necessary.

The Court also found a violation of s. 15(1) due to the systemic failure to provide adequate interpretation services.

The Court severed the words 'or subsequent' from s. 20(4)(b)(iii) of the Act, suspending the declaration of invalidity for 12 months, and granted a declaration of the appellant's equality rights.

The appellant insurer appealed a jury trial judgment, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing two motions for a mistrial due to plaintiff's counsel's conduct during cross-examination and closing address.

The appellant also challenged the award of 2% per month interest on overdue payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge gave clear and appropriate instructions to the jury to cure any prejudice.

The Court also upheld the 2% interest rate, noting that the 2010 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule preserved the substantive right to the former interest rate for accidents occurring before its effective date.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim to reverse a 1988 conveyance on the grounds of fraud.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant's execution of a 1996 quit claim deed reflected her intention to show true ownership, rendering the claim against the 1988 conveyance bound to fail.

Furthermore, any claim for damages was barred by the two-year limitation period, as the appellant discovered the alleged fraud in 2004, and obtaining corroborating expert evidence later did not delay discoverability.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, previously found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board refusing an absolute discharge and continuing a conditional discharge.

The Board concluded the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high likelihood of non-compliance with anti-psychotic medication if discharged absolutely.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the expert opinion of a consulting forensic psychiatrist regarding the appellant's fluctuating insight into his condition.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 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 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.