Michael Kelly

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $35,000 in damages for breach of a commercial lease.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to apply the Highway Properties principles, exceeding her jurisdiction by granting declaratory relief regarding real property, and providing inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent provided proper Highway Properties Notice, the trial judge merely made necessary findings of fact to award monetary damages within her jurisdiction, and the reasons were sufficient given the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The accused appealed convictions for fraud and an order for a new trial on cheating-related counts arising from attempts to rig horse races by drugging horses.

The Court held there was evidence a horse race can involve mixed chance and skill through randomized post positions, supporting a new trial on cheating counts.

It further held the drugging scheme constituted dishonest conduct creating a non-remote risk of deprivation to bettors, and upheld entered fraud convictions.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 applicants, injured in a 2008 motor vehicle accident, sought an interim order for funding of catastrophic impairment rebuttal reports in the amount of $26,352.00 each.

The insurer had partially approved the treatment plans for $8,000.00 per applicant based on a prior pre-hearing agreement.

The arbitrator found that the claim for funding fell under the 1996 Schedule, which restricts the insurer's funding obligation to portions of the report relevant to the denial.

Applying the Bernicky criteria, the arbitrator concluded the requested interim expenses were not shown to be reasonable and necessary for the conduct of the arbitration at this stage, leaving the issue of the additional assessments and their admissibility to the hearing arbitrator.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to an inability to obtain instructions from the applicant.

The insurer brought a countermotion to dismiss the application for arbitration and sought expenses.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove the legal representative from the record.

The arbitrator also dismissed the application for arbitration without a hearing under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding it frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The insurer was awarded $500.00 in expenses.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for dangerous driving causing death.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the mens rea, that his language rights were violated, and that a probation condition banishing him from Prince Edward County was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the objective mens rea standard from R. v. Beatty, the appellant had explicitly waived a French trial, and his counsel had consented to the banishment condition at sentencing.

The appellant, who claimed to have a spiritual healing gift from God, was convicted of sexual assault and breaching recognizance conditions after touching a client's breast without consent during healing sessions.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias, and erred in finding he breached his recognizance and committed sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge managed the trial fairly, the presumption of impartiality was not rebutted, and the convictions were supported by credible evidence.

The respondent, a licensed horse trainer, injected a performance-enhancing drug into a horse before a race.

He was acquitted at trial of fraud and cheating while playing a game.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by concluding the betting public was not at risk of deprivation, as bettors are entitled to rely on compliance with the regulatory scheme.

The trial judge also erred in finding horse racing is a game of pure skill without considering if it is a game of mixed chance and skill.

The acquittals for fraud were set aside and convictions entered, while a new trial was ordered for the cheating charges.

The offender was convicted after trial of dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from intentionally driving toward a pedestrian on a residential one‑way street and striking him, causing serious injuries that prevented the victim from returning to work.

The court considered aggravating factors including deliberate risk‑taking, serious injuries, flight from the scene, and a criminal record including prior driving offences.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth at the time of the offence, dated criminal record, family responsibilities, and evidence suggesting potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that denunciation and deterrence were primary objectives but that a penitentiary term would impede rehabilitation.

A custodial sentence of eighteen months followed by probation and ancillary orders was imposed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's discretionary decision to dismiss his action for delay at a status hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere, noting the appellant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay or demonstrate an absence of prejudice to the respondent regarding his claim for long-term disability benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs award was denied.