K.M. Weiler

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to appoint her as estate trustee during litigation to pursue a claim against the respondent for breach of fiduciary duty owed to their late mother.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle, agreeing that the appellant would be in a conflict of interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the motion judge erred in ordering the appellant to pay full indemnity costs, and reduced the award to partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed an order confirming a previous order that struck his pleadings for failing to comply with multiple disclosure orders in a family law proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting the appellant failed to provide evidence of compliance despite being given ample opportunity.

The appeal was dismissed, though the Court left open the possibility for the appellant to seek an indulgence to reopen pleadings if he demonstrates substantial compliance in the future.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages against the City for groundwater contamination caused by road salt, which allegedly prevented the development of a medical office building with underground parking.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence that it actually intended to build such a development and subsequently excluded the appellant's expert evidence, which was based on that rejected factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, or costs award.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for second degree murder and assault with a weapon, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had upheld restrictions on his liberty and imposed a hybrid disposition, finding he remained a significant threat to public safety due to aggressive behaviour and non-compliance with medication.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge under s. 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Board's conclusion that the appellant remained a significant risk to public safety and that the hybrid disposition was the least restrictive and appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and making and possessing child pornography in relation to his nieces.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, improperly used similar fact evidence, reversed the burden of proof, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons adequate, the similar fact evidence properly admitted, and no errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or burden of proof.

The appellant sued her former solicitors in professional negligence.

The firm successfully brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, the retainer dispute was not res judicata, and the motions judge erred in dismissing the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, that the fee dispute was settled and res judicata, and that the appellant failed to provide evidence that the alleged negligence caused her damages.

No costs were awarded due to the appellant's impecuniosity.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody at a rate of 1.5:1.

Following a review of the sentencing transcript, it was revealed that the original joint submission did not account for the appellant's lost eligibility for early release.

Relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Summers, the Crown conceded that the appellant was entitled to the enhanced credit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted the appellant 806 days of pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant husband appealed an order enforcing a separation agreement and child support arrears.

He argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment and in enforcing the agreement due to an alleged power imbalance, emotional stress, and ambiguity regarding child support for his stepchildren.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal to adjourn given the appellant's history of non-compliance.

The court also held that ambiguity in the support clause and the appellant's emotional stress were not grounds to invalidate the entire agreement.

The appellant appealed his conviction for forgery-related offences concerning a forged consent to set aside a vexatious litigant order.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to stay the proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that, after attributing 19 months of the delay to the appellant and finding no actual prejudice, a stay was not warranted.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant forged and presented the consent document.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 his global sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for multiple offences arising from a violent home invasion and possession of a prohibited firearm.

He argued the sentence was crushing and demonstrably unfit given his youth, minor prior record, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The court emphasized the gratuitous physical violence, permanent psychological damage inflicted on the victims, and the terrorization of the family, which included holding a loaded gun to a child's head.

The appellant applied to rescind an order dismissing his appeal of a dangerous driving conviction as abandoned, and to set aside his guilty plea on the basis that he was misinformed by trial counsel regarding the length of his licence suspension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, noting that the guilty plea was part of a broader plea bargain involving other charges.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant applying to set aside all of his convictions, as the interests of justice require a full consideration of the entire plea bargain.

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.

Following a successful appeal in a complex tax case, the appellant sought costs of the trial and appeal totaling over $1.3 million.

The respondent agreed costs should follow the event but argued the amounts were excessive.

The Court of Appeal declined to apply a 25% bump-up for a non-Rule 49 settlement offer, noting the respondent's obligation to protect the public purse in a test case.

The Court awarded the appellant costs of the appeal and trial fixed at $925,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing their motion for a declaration that a civil judgment for assault survives the responding party's bankruptcy.

The motion judge had relied on a lower court decision that was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal after the appeal period expired.

Applying the test for extending time, the court found that despite an unsatisfactory explanation for part of the delay, the strong merits of the proposed appeal and the interests of justice warranted granting the extension.

The motion was allowed, with costs awarded to the responding party for the indulgence.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing his payment obligations under a Share Purchase Agreement.

He argued the business was illegal and that the agreements contemplated an ongoing supply of movies, raising credibility issues requiring a trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant provided only bald statements without supporting evidence, and upheld the motion judge's decision.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident when the pickup truck he was a passenger in went through a red light and was struck by a transport truck going through a green light.

The jury found the driver of the pickup 95% liable and the driver of the transport truck 5% liable.

The appellants (the transport truck driver and owners) appealed, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misdirected the jury on causation, and there was improper cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence supported the jury's conclusion that a reasonably prudent driver should have been aware of the hazard, the jury charge was not in error when read as a whole, and the improper cross-examination was not serious enough to undermine trial fairness.

The respondent purchased a residential property from the appellant and later discovered it had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op and contained mould.

The respondent successfully obtained partial summary judgment on liability.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, finding that the motion judge's brief endorsement failed to provide any legal analysis or findings of fact regarding the existence of mould at the time of closing, thereby preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 for his participation in a $4 million mortgage scheme and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment and $250,000 in restitution.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by conducting his own handwriting analysis, failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter following unlawful arrest and search, and imposing an unfit sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the Grant framework to admit the evidence, reasonably assessed the handwriting, and correctly held that conditional sentences are inappropriate for large-scale fraud.