Laskin

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its application seeking a declaration that a by-law and warranty agreement entered into by the declarant-appointed board were invalid.

The agreement limited the declarant's liability for common element deficiencies to the statutory warranties under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the by-law was within the board's broad authority under section 56 of the Condominium Act, was not contrary to the Act or the declaration, and was not unreasonable.

The court held that the initial directors acted lawfully in organizing the condominium's affairs as anticipated by the declaration and disclosed to purchasers.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a costs award made by the Superior Court of Justice.

Neither party appeared at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the costs award and refused leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,200.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the refusal given the history of the proceedings and the absence of any merit in the appellant's claim.

Costs were awarded to each respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that it was a proper case for summary judgment and agreed with the reasons of the motion judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the calculation of a mortgage payout rate and the validity of a prepayment clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the prepayment clause was not void for uncertainty and that the calculation of the payout rate at 4.35 percent was substantiated by the lender's evidence given the risk-free nature of the loan.

The appellant appealed her conviction on Highway Traffic Act charges.

Due to a misunderstanding with her paralegal, neither attended her trial, which proceeded ex parte.

A subsequent appeal hearing also proceeded in her absence, resulting in a resolution she claimed she did not consent to.

The Court of Appeal found that the apparent unfairness at trial was not cured by the appeal hearing and ordered a new trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge granting summary judgment and awarding costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed an order for possession.

On consent, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the condition that the order for possession not be enforced until July 1, 2014.

The respondents were awarded costs of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant appealed the order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction for a home invasion robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting a recanted K.G.B. statement, relying on the witness's guilty plea, and drawing an adverse inference from the late disclosure of the recantation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the statement or using the guilty plea to assess reliability.

However, the court held the trial judge erred in law by drawing an adverse inference against the appellant for the late disclosure of the recantation, as accused persons generally have no obligation to disclose their defence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of three burglaries based primarily on the testimony of his accomplice.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge improperly used similar fact reasoning to bolster the accomplice's credibility, despite dismissing the Crown's similar fact application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately considered circumstantial evidence, such as the appellant's possession of a screwdriver, and the totality of the evidence without engaging in propensity reasoning.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order under the Extradition Act.

The applicant conceded that the Minister applied the correct principles regarding sections 7 and 6(1) of the Charter and section 44 of the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal found that the Minister's surrender decision was not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed an order regarding the assessment of solicitor accounts under the Solicitors Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the authorization and direction signed by the appellants precluded them from disputing the respondent's right to assess all the accounts in issue.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $2,500.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents in the amount of $10,000.

The appellants appealed the application judge's interpretation of a clause in Schedule A of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the clause was not ambiguous and upheld the application judge's interpretation based on the wording and commercial reality of the transaction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision and the associated award of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's findings of fact.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs, as the parties had not made submissions on costs and there was no basis for substantial indemnity costs.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in principle by failing to consider that this was his first period of incarceration and by miscalculating pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal agreed, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Summers to grant 115 days of pre-sentence credit.

The appeal was allowed, the sentence was reduced to 12 months' imprisonment, and specific probation conditions were varied.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge's finding that he threw a flaming object onto a shopping mall roof was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was an ample basis for the trial judge's conclusion and no reason to re-weigh the evidence.