L.B. Roberts

In a second addendum to an appeal decision regarding a partnership dispute, the court considered the appellants' payment of income taxes for a corporation.

Based on affidavit evidence and notices of assessment confirming a remittance of $8,348.36 to the Canada Revenue Agency, the court ordered that this amount be deducted from the corporation's net income figure to arrive at an after-tax income figure for the purpose of recalculating the damages owing to the respondent.

The appellants, over 400 healthcare workers, appealed an order striking their action against the provincial Crown and various healthcare organizations regarding a COVID-19 vaccination directive.

The motion judge struck the claims as an abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, finding the action was a broad political inquiry rather than a legally cognizable dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the Charter did not apply to the private healthcare respondents, the tort claims lacked material facts, and the unionized and privileged hospital staff appellants were required to pursue their claims in other statutory forums.

The respondent in the underlying family law proceeding sought to have the appellant declared a vexatious litigant under r. 2.2.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court had already dismissed the appellant's motion for fresh evidence, review motion, and appeal with costs to the respondent.

The motion judge found that, with no ongoing proceeding remaining before the court, there was no jurisdiction to grant the vexatious litigant order, and dismissed the motion without prejudice to renewing it in the Superior Court or in respect of any future proceedings.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder in the strangulation death of his intimate partner.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in leaving planned and deliberate murder with the jury, as there was no air of reality to the element of deliberation.

While there was an air of reality to constructive first-degree murder based on unlawful confinement, the Court found that the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Trial counsel's decision to call a forensic psychiatrist, whose evidence introduced highly prejudicial statements by the appellant about his intent to kill, fell below the standard of reasonableness and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his cross-motion regarding the administration of his late father's estate.

He sought an extension of time to file an election under s. 6(1) of the Family Law Act on behalf of his incapable mother, arguing his father may have made a subsequent will disinheriting her.

The application judge found no evidence of a subsequent will and that an election was not in the mother's best interests.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's factual findings or costs award.

This appeal concerns the correct analytical approach to fixing costs when an action is settled before adjudication on the merits.

Two infant plaintiffs were catastrophically injured when struck by a vehicle in 2004.

After more than ten years of litigation, the parties settled in June 2017, three months before trial.

The settlement provided for $1 million from each of the Potrebics and Pipolos, with costs to be determined by the court.

The motion judge apportioned costs based on his assessment of the parties' respective liability for damages, finding the Potrebics solely responsible.

The appellants challenged this apportionment and the quantum of costs awarded.

The appellant was convicted of obstructing justice under s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code for fleeing Canada to avoid testifying as a Crown witness under a subpoena.

Although the subpoena was issued improperly by the Registrar of the Superior Court of Justice, the trial judge held that it had to be obeyed unless set aside.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the invalidity of the subpoena meant the actus reus of the offence was not proven.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rule against collateral attacks applied and the appellant's evasion of the subpoena had a tendency to obstruct justice regardless of its validity.

Crown appeal of an acquittal in a provincial offences matter concerning the interpretation of the standard of "reasonable belief" under section 156(1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The respondent was charged with hindering or obstructing a provincial officer in the performance of his duties after preventing an inspection of his property where an open fire was burning.

The central issue was whether the provincial officer had the requisite authority to conduct a warrantless inspection based on information received from a bylaw officer regarding smoke and waste disposal on the property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the conviction, establishing that "reasonable belief" in the regulatory inspection context is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable grounds" and does not require the application of criminal law standards for assessing informant tips.

The appellants advanced $600,000 to the respondents during negotiations to purchase a 25 per cent interest in the respondents' business.

When the transaction failed, the appellants sued to recover the funds, arguing they were a refundable deposit or loan, while the respondents claimed they were a non-refundable down payment.

The trial judge dismissed the action in very brief reasons.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge mischaracterized the central issue and failed to provide sufficient reasons to permit meaningful appellate review.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the Toronto Police Services Board for mass detentions and arrests during the 2010 G20 summit.

After the motion judge dismissed the certification motion, the plaintiff narrowed her claims on appeal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified two separate class actions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal, upholding the certification of the location-based subclasses and the detention centre class, finding that the narrowed claims met the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal on costs, increasing the costs award for the certification motion to $315,000 to reflect the legislative goal of access to justice.