K. van Rensburg

The appellant was convicted of robbery following a home invasion and sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by relying on the rejected testimony of a co-accused and failing to caution himself about unsavoury witness evidence.

He also sought to introduce fresh DNA evidence and appealed his sentence based on the parity principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and the fresh evidence motion, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the circumstantial evidence or the differing sentences imposed on the co-accused based on their respective moral culpability.

The appellant appealed his conviction for historical indecent assault against his stepson, arguing the trial judge engaged in uneven scrutiny of the evidence and provided insufficient reasons regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, including the rejection of the appellant's exculpatory explanations.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons sufficiently addressed the reliability of the complainant's evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

In supplementary reasons, the Court of Appeal addressed an error in the application judge's formal judgments regarding the continuation of a right of survivorship after a joint tenancy was severed into a tenancy in common.

The court granted the respondent leave to cross-appeal without a formal notice, varied the judgments to extinguish the right of survivorship, and issued a vesting order transferring 100% of the beneficial interest in the property to the respondent as the beneficiary of a resulting trust.

The appellant appealed his convictions for production and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant claimed his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights were breached due to a delay in providing a Vietnamese interpreter upon his arrest.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant factors, noting the delay was an isolated mistake, the appellant was not mistreated, and the evidence was obtained pursuant to a valid search warrant issued prior to the arrest.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was abandoned.

The appellant appealed her convictions for fraudulent personation and offences related to a forged certificate of stay of probation.

She argued the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove she prepared and sent the documents, and that the trial should have been heard in Superior Court because a testifying lawyer allegedly acted as a second prosecutor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded guilt was the only logical inference, and rejected the jurisdictional argument as meritless.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, and was sentenced to a global term of nine years.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive and seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of lockdown conditions and triple bunking.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's reasons, noting the aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of the drugs and the appellant's criminal record.

The court admitted the fresh evidence but declined to reduce the sentence, concluding it remained fit.

The appellant appealed his sentence of seven years and seven months for firearms and drug offences, arguing the trial judge erred by treating him as a recidivist based on his youth record and by failing to grant a further sentence reduction for harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly weighed the appellant's continuous criminal record, including a youth conviction for first-degree murder using a firearm, to assess moral culpability.

The Court also held that the trial judge appropriately factored the harsh pre-trial conditions into the global sentence without requiring a mathematical deduction.

The appellants were convicted of procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and advertising sexual services.

At trial, the judge applied section 276 of the Criminal Code to restrict the appellants from cross-examining the complainant about her prior work in the sex trade.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that section 276 does not apply categorically to sexual services and human trafficking offences, and that the trial judge erred in applying it to restrict relevant cross-examination.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso, allowed the appeals in respect of the sexual services offences, and ordered a new trial.

An appeal against a conviction for trafficking MDMA was dismissed.

The appellant property owner appealed a judgment granting the City's application to enforce a Heritage Easement Agreement.

The appellant had made unauthorized alterations to his property, including cutting down trees and building a hockey rink and cabana.

The application judge found the appellant breached the Agreement and granted a permanent injunction.

On appeal, the appellant argued the application judge misinterpreted the Agreement and that the City's enforcement was motivated by bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the application judge's decision and concluding that the City had exercised its contractual discretion in good faith.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his $2,000,000 copyright infringement action against the respondent transit commission.

The appellant claimed copyright over transit route maps based on an unpublished U.S. copyright registration.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondent's preliminary objection that the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court, noting the claim amount exceeded $50,000.

The Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no originality in the appellant's maps and no evidence the respondent used them, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine, arguing the trial judge erred in not declaring a mistrial after a juror brought internet articles into the jury room.

She also argued her s. 11(b) Charter rights were violated by post-conviction delay and her right to make full answer and defence was compromised by lost airport surveillance video.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inquiry into the jury issue was sufficient, the post-conviction delay was justified by a Gardiner hearing which constituted an exceptional circumstance, and the jury instructions regarding the lost video were fair.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a restricted firearm knowing possession is unauthorized.

He appealed his four-year sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in assessing an expert report regarding his post-traumatic stress disorder and in applying Gladue factors.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in assessing the expert's report, which was relevant to the circumstances of the offences and rehabilitation prospects.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was reduced to three and a half years.

The appellant appealed a 24-month conditional sentence.

Based on unusual circumstances, significant pre-sentence custody, fresh evidence, and a Crown concession, the Court of Appeal found the original sentence unreasonable.

The court accepted a joint submission and varied the sentence to 12 months' incarceration, less 5 months' credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 7 months.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for a fuel oil spill at the respondents' home.

The trial judge found that the appellants negligently failed to identify that the respondents' fuel oil tank, which was labelled for indoor use, was installed outdoors, and failed to tag it as non-compliant.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by applying the 'material contribution' test for causation instead of the 'but for' test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge articulated the wrong test, she effectively applied the 'but for' test by finding the spill would not have occurred if the appellants had fulfilled their regulatory obligations.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's apportionment of liability, finding of contributory negligence, and damages assessment.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for the return of a $100,000 deposit on a real estate transaction.

The property's depth was significantly less than described in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The respondent vendor had manually added 'To be verified' next to the depth dimension.

The motion judge found this proviso shifted the risk of inaccuracy to the purchaser.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the proviso did not impose a pre-contractual obligation on the purchaser to verify dimensions, nor did it transfer the risk or negate the 'more or less' clause.

The deposit was ordered returned to the appellant.

The appellant tenant sued the respondent commercial landlord for damages arising from roof leaks and a non-functioning gas line.

The landlord obtained summary judgment dismissing the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to resolve material factual disputes regarding when the tenant's obligation to insure commenced and whether the premises were insurable.

The motion judge also committed extricable errors of law in interpreting the 'as is' provisions of the lease by conflating 'Premises' and 'Building' and ignoring a relevant schedule.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

In a complex construction lien and environmental remediation dispute, the parties brought cross-motions to compel answers to questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The owner sought answers from the remediation contractor regarding its prior experience and sampling protocols.

The contractor sought information and documents from the owner regarding the historical environmental condition of the property and its 1981 purchase agreement.

Applying the relevance test informed by proportionality, the court ordered the contractor to answer questions about its experience and subcontractor control, and ordered the owner to produce historical environmental information and the 1981 purchase documents, as they were relevant to the allegations of negligence and failure to mitigate.

The plaintiff purchased a restaurant business and condominium unit.

After closing, she discovered an outstanding municipal work order against the property.

She settled her claim with the title insurer but sued her real estate solicitor for professional negligence, alleging he failed to conduct necessary searches.

The solicitor third-partied the title insurer, claiming a duty to defend and indemnify under an agreement with the Law Society.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding no negligence as the purchasers had insisted on a short closing and waived searches, and the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

The court granted the third-party claim, holding that the title insurer had a duty to pay the solicitor's defence costs because the true nature of the plaintiff's claim fell within the scope of the title insurance policy.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought a pretrial application to admit the videotaped police interviews of the eight-year-old brother of the deceased under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The child had returned to Jamaica and his mother refused to permit him to testify.

While the necessity requirement was met, the court found the statements lacked threshold reliability due to material inconsistencies, the child's tendency to guess or make assumptions, and the lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

The Crown's application to admit the hearsay evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault after attacking his former common-law spouse's new partner with a machete.

The accused admitted to the physical act but denied having the specific intent to kill, claiming he only intended to injure the victim before committing suicide.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding that his prior writings, preparations, and actions demonstrated a clear, deliberate plan to kill the victim.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder.