K.M. Weiler

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to change a final custody order that had granted him sole custody of his two sons and required them to attend a reunification program.

The younger son had repeatedly run away and refused to live with the appellant or attend the program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the son's extreme resistance constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was no longer in his best interests to enforce the custody order.

The court also dismissed the son's cross-appeal seeking a declaration that he had withdrawn from parental control, finding the motion judge's order that no person had custody or access rights over him was sufficient.

The appellant appealed a decision awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal, specifically challenging the inclusion of commission income and a bonus during the 16-month notice period.

The Court of Appeal upheld the commission award, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent should continue to receive commission on all advertising revenue.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the bonus, finding the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding a guaranteed bonus.

The costs award from the court below was also reduced.

The appellants appealed an order striking out most of their causes of action without leave to amend.

The action arose from a consulting agreement and alleged breach of trust and fraudulent diversion of funds by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, permitting the appellants to amend their statement of claim to include a breach of trust claim against the corporate owner of the properties and a personal liability claim against the individual respondents for fraudulent diversion of funds, finding the motions judge erred in restricting the piercing of the corporate veil to sham corporations.

The appellant appealed a decision granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent, arguing the motion judge erred in denying a second adjournment.

The motion had previously been adjourned and marked peremptory to the appellant, with instructions to either retain counsel or seek leave for a director to represent the corporation.

On the return date, the appellant had not retained counsel and provided no evidence to contradict the summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion to deny the adjournment and grant summary judgment.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for failing to report a $9,500 Canada Pension Plan payment to the Ontario Disability Support Program for over five months.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred by not expressly addressing whether a reasonable person would consider the delay dishonest given the complexity of the social assistance system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly stated the law and reasonably concluded the appellant's knowing delay and immediate withdrawal of the funds constituted a dishonest act.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to attend a mental examination under s. 105(2) of the Courts of Justice Act to determine if he required a litigation guardian.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or overriding and palpable error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion, given previous court orders and expert reports concerning the appellant's conduct.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing his arrest was unlawful, evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the trial judge misapprehended evidence.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge did not err in concluding there were objective grounds for the arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including a confidential informant tip and police surveillance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis and found no error in the assessment of evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the four-year term was fit and within the appropriate range.

Following a successful appeal regarding the apportionment of damages, the court determined the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The third parties were ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $50,000 to the appellants and $75,000 to the respondents.

The appellants were ordered to pay $30,000 in partial indemnity costs to the respondents, as the respondents were required to address all issues initially raised by the appellants.

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 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 moving party sought an order permitting the late filing of a notice of appeal from a motion judge's dismissal of its summary judgment motion.

The summary judgment motion had been based on a limitation period defence.

The Court of Appeal determined that the motion judge's dismissal was an interlocutory order, not a final order, because the formal order did not reflect a binding determination on the limitation period and the matter was sent to trial.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the motion for late filing was dismissed.

The moving party, a debtor company in receivership, sought leave to appeal an order approving the sale of its assets by a court-appointed receiver.

The moving party argued that the receiver acted unfairly, that the debtor's management retained the right to negotiate a restructuring, and that the receiver failed to consult with affected Aboriginal communities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the debtor's parallel negotiations contravened the receivership order, the receiver had exclusive authority to market the assets, and the Aboriginal consultation issue was raised too late and lacked an adequate evidentiary record.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple offences, including assault causing bodily harm and unlawful confinement against his former girlfriend, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge erred by mischaracterizing defence evidence as an alibi, applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and over-relying on similar fact and post-offence conduct evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in characterizing certain evidence as an alibi, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the curative proviso applied.

The court also upheld the dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, finding the trial judge reasonably assessed the psychiatric evidence and the appellant's risk to re-offend.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, who was previously found Not Criminally Responsible for criminal harassment and mischief, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board maintaining his conditional discharge.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and sought an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion reasonable given the appellant's active symptoms of schizophrenia, lack of insight, and stated intention to stop taking medication if discharged.

The appellant appealed her conviction for assault causing bodily harm, which was entered following a guilty plea.

The Court of Appeal found the plea was invalid and not unequivocal due to shifting facts presented by the Crown, the appellant's statements suggesting a lack of mens rea, and indications she pleaded guilty primarily to be released from jail where she was allegedly denied HIV medication.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed their convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, and assault arising from three separate incidents that occurred over a 30-minute period.

They argued the verdicts were unreasonable, challenging the trial judge's findings on self-defence, identity, and common intention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were amply supported by the evidence, which established that the appellants acted together as common participants in all three incidents.

Leave to appeal sentence was also denied.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment in 2008, appealed a decision of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention order.

He argued the Board erred in law by equating the harm of criminal harassment with a 'significant threat to the safety of the public' under s. 672.5401 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board did not focus solely on the index offence but considered all evidence, including the likelihood that the appellant would discontinue medication and engage in physical and aggressive behaviour.

The Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant threat was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that directed his detention at a mental health facility, revoking his prior conditional discharge.

The appellant had been returned to the facility after being charged with criminal harassment, which was resolved by a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's conclusion that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety was reasonable, given his diagnosis, lack of insight, and recent negative interactions.

The Court also upheld the detention order, noting the appellant's lack of stable housing and employment prospects, and dismissed the appeal.