Kathryn N.M. van Rensburg

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).

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and submitted an application for accident benefits without a disability certificate.

The respondent insurer denied the claim.

More than two years later, the appellant sought mediation and subsequently commenced an action, which was dismissed on summary judgment as statute-barred.

On appeal, the appellant argued the limitation period did not begin until a valid claim, including a disability certificate, was denied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application was valid without the certificate and that allowing a claimant to delay the limitation period indefinitely by withholding a certificate would undermine the statutory regime's purpose of timely resolution.

The appellant appealed an order requiring her to file a fresh Statement of Claim in the Superior Court rather than transferring her existing Small Claims Court claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly required a fresh claim because the original included improper references to settlement discussions and presented procedural issues.

The court also found no reasonable apprehension of bias and upheld the motion judge's decision to make no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her motor vehicle accident claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge had granted summary judgment because the appellant failed to plead facts relevant to discoverability in her statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a limitations defence must be pleaded in a statement of defence, and discoverability should be addressed in a reply, not anticipated in the statement of claim.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding when the claim was discovered and granted the appellant leave to deliver a reply.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for a 2007 sexual assault and appealed his annual review by the Ontario Review Board, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

In parallel proceedings, the Superior Court overturned the NCR verdict and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal as the bias issue was highly fact-specific.

The respondent sued the appellant for defamation arising from a brief sexual relationship.

The appellant counterclaimed for sexual battery and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The motion judge struck the claim in battery, and the appellant appealed.

The appellant, representing herself, repeatedly sought adjournments based on alleged emotional difficulties and medical appointments but failed to provide supporting evidence or appear at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for an adjournment and the appeal, noting the appeal had little chance of success.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the centre line and striking an oncoming vehicle while feeling suicidal.

He appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the requisite mens rea and rejecting his defence of a momentary lapse of attention.

He also appealed his 90-day intermittent sentence, arguing the trial judge improperly considered his deliberate crossing of the centre line as an aggravating factor without it being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's mens rea analysis.

While the Court agreed the trial judge erred in relying on the unproven aggravating factor for sentencing, it ultimately found the original sentence was fit and dismissed the sentence appeal.