K.M. Weiler

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible due to schizophrenia, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that changed his status from a conditional discharge to a detention order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's refusal to grant an absolute discharge, as the appellant remained a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the detention order, finding the Board failed to adequately explain why a detention order was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given the appellant's compliance with previous conditions.

The conditional discharge was reinstated.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment declaring that a May 2014 agreement between the parties was a binding contract and ordering its rectification to remove a clause requiring a future formal agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings that the parties' conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound and that the formal agreement clause was included by mutual mistake.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The deceased, a non-swimmer, drowned in Lake Simcoe while visiting the respondents' cottage.

The appellants brought an action in negligence and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the respondents failed to warn the deceased of the lake's dangers and falsely represented that the lake was safe and shallow.

The motion judge dismissed the action on summary judgment, finding no special relationship or duty of care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing that the respondents did not control the lake, did not create a risky situation, and owed no duty to warn the deceased of obvious dangers removed from their property.

The appellants, unsecured creditors, sought to appeal a motion judge's order approving an amended proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and refusing to adjourn the approval motion to allow further examination of the debtor's president.

The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal was required because the issues were procedural and did not directly involve property exceeding $10,000.

The Court denied leave, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit, raised no issues of general importance, and the motion judge's conclusions on the reasonableness and good faith of the proposal were unassailable.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order granting summary judgment against them in a debt collection matter.

The motion judge had set aside an initial summary judgment and granted a second one after the appellants failed to file responding materials and were denied a further adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment or in the calculation of the amounts owing.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following a successful appeal where the appellant was granted leave to amend his statement of claim, the Court of Appeal determined the issue of costs.

The parties agreed the successful party on appeal should receive $5,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded the appellant $5,000 for the appeal, but upheld the motion judge's $15,000 costs award in favour of the respondent.

The amounts were set off, resulting in a net payment of $10,000 from the appellant to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of assault causing bodily harm relating to his two-month-old infant, who suffered 12 rib fractures on two separate occasions.

The appellant argued the first verdict was unreasonable and the trial judge misapplied the W. (D.) principles, and that the second verdict involved an error in applying the test for implied consent during an attempt to administer CPR.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings reasonable, the W. (D.) principles properly applied, and that the force used during the alleged CPR was excessive, vitiating any defence of implied consent.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching in respect of a seven-year-old child.

The appellant argued the trial judge made three errors in assessing the child's credibility, including relying on stereotypical reasoning regarding a sex education book, speculating about the child's ability to operate a camera, and improperly assessing the child's motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences were grounded in the specific evidence and correctly applied a common sense approach to assessing the child's evidence without rigid stereotypes.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the Law Society of Upper Canada after his statement of claim was struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being an abuse of process.

The appellant alleged a long history of unfair treatment, including administrative suspensions, disciplinary proceedings, and bankruptcy opposition.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the individual acts did not give rise to viable causes of action as pleaded and that many claims were settled by prior releases.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred in refusing leave to amend the pleading to properly allege the tort of misfeasance in public office based on a cumulative pattern of bad faith conduct.

The appeal was allowed in part to grant leave to file a fresh as amended statement of claim.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee six months' reasonable notice.

The employer argued the notice period was too long and that the motion judge failed to deduct mitigation income.

The Court of Appeal upheld the six-month notice period, finding it was not outside the acceptable range despite the motion judge's emphasis on the availability of comparable employment.

On consent, the court reduced the award by $1,634.62 to account for mitigation income earned during the notice period.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to surrender him to France for attempted murder.

The applicant argued that the Minister lacked authority to order surrender for attempted murder because the Authority to Proceed was limited to aggravated assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the Minister's decision was reasonable and that the Minister is not required to align the surrender offence with the offence listed in the Authority to Proceed.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraud and use of a forged document.

The charges arose from her cashing Canada Savings Bonds in her sister's name using an allegedly forged power of attorney.

The appellant claimed the funds were hers and placed in her sister's name to hide them during a marital breakdown.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding that even if the funds were hers, cashing bonds in her sister's name constituted fraud, and placed the onus on the appellant to prove the power of attorney was valid.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in law on the elements of fraud, improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding the power of attorney, and failed to meaningfully analyze the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

The mother of a child subject to Crown wardship proceedings brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal of a decision dismissing the father's appeal.

The mother had not participated in the trial or the initial appeal.

The Court of Appeal applied the Kefeli factors and dismissed the motion, finding that the mother had not formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay, and that her appeal lacked merit as she had not seen the child in over three years and had not participated in the proceedings below.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting the complainant while she was sleeping.

At trial, the appellant denied any sexual contact, but on appeal argued the trial judge erred by not considering the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Judge found no air of reality to this defence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding no clear error in the lower court's conclusion that a defence incompatible with the accused's own testimony lacked an air of reality.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 0.80.

The appellant argued the trial judge's reasons were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding no clear error by the summary conviction appeal judge and noting the case involved well-settled legal principles with no broader significance to the administration of justice.

The appellant, a car mechanic, issued a Safety Standards Certificate for a truck without conducting the required inspection.

The truck was later involved in a fatal accident.

At the preliminary inquiry, the appellant was discharged on a count of criminal negligence causing death based on a break in the chain of causation.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari to quash the discharge.

On appeal, the appellant argued there was insufficient evidence that the steering defect existed when the certificate was issued.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence, including expert testimony and witness accounts, for a properly instructed jury to find the appellant's actions were a significant contributing cause of the death.

The receiver of the appellant appealed a motion judge's interpretation of an accounts receivable insurance policy with the respondent insurer.

The motion judge found that buyers' claims for set-off against amounts owing to the appellant constituted a 'dispute' under clause 7 of the policy, which deferred the insurer's liability to pay claims.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no ambiguity in the clause and confirming that a dispute is not restricted to claims arising out of the unpaid shipment of goods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a permanent resident, pleaded guilty to robbery and was subsequently deported.

He appealed his conviction, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed due to ineffective assistance of counsel, as his lawyer allegedly failed to advise him of the immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was already subject to a stayed deportation order and knew that further criminal convictions could lead to deportation.

Even if counsel's performance was deficient, there was no miscarriage of justice because the appellant understood deportation was a potential consequence of his plea.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the verdict was unreasonable due to the complainant's lack of credibility and that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge meaningfully addressed the frailties in the complainant's evidence, including her criminal record and drug use, and properly found confirmation in other evidence such as her immediate reporting and physical injuries.

The verdict was held to be reasonable.

The young person appealed findings of guilt for robbery, weapons dangerous, and possession of stolen property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the robbery conviction, finding the trial judge's reasons sufficient and the verdict reasonable based on the appellant's proximity to the robbery, flight from police, and recent possession of stolen property.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to apply the Kienapple principle, staying the findings of guilt for weapons dangerous and possession of stolen property to avoid multiple convictions.