Lene Madsen

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Peoples Trust Company (PTC) to partially lift the automatic stay of a penalty order requiring PSP Services Inc. (PSP) to pay $1,998,612.07 into court, pending appeal.

The court reviewed the context and the three-part test for lifting a stay, finding that all factors weighed in favour of granting the motion.

The stay was lifted, and PSP was ordered to pay the funds into court.

Costs were set at $7,500.

The appellant, Eli Messica, appealed an order granting the respondents’ application for the discharge of a security charge and dismissing his cross-application for damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s findings that the lease provided for the release of the guarantors upon assignment and that the cross-application was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court rejected arguments regarding the conversion of the application to an action and the applicability of the Real Property Limitations Act, finding no reversible error or prejudice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals of R.V.A., who was found guilty of repeatedly sexually abusing his daughter between the ages of 12 and 16.

The court addressed the trial judge’s reliance on an adoptive admission, the treatment of the stepmother’s evidence, and the rejection of the appellant’s testimony.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the nine-year sentence fit despite a possible error regarding aggravating factors.

The applicant, Courtney Dennis, applied for state-funded counsel under section 684 of the Criminal Code after being convicted of importing cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the grounds of appeal were not arguable, particularly in light of Supreme Court authority on the obligation of an accused who testifies to answer all questions.

The court also found no arguable error in sentencing.

The decision reviews the legal framework for appointing appellate counsel and the standards for determining whether an appeal is arguable.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed David Tweneboa-Kodua’s motion for leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of eviction, finding the court lacked jurisdiction.

The proper avenue to challenge the Divisional Court’s order was a motion before a panel of that court, not an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The court found the motion frivolous and an abuse of process, and made no order as to costs.

The appellant, Amy Smith Cox, appealed a detention order of the Ontario Review Board that found she continued to pose a significant threat of serious harm to the public and imposed a no-contact provision with her father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the significant threat finding but allowed the appeal in part regarding the no-contact provision, varying it to permit contact with her father at the discretion of the treatment team.

The appellant, Dave Marcotte, sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal of a divorce order, arguing the date of separation used in the proceedings was incorrect.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the appeal fundamentally misconceived because the proper forum for challenging the date of separation was a motion under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules in the Superior Court, which Mr. Marcotte had already commenced.

The court held that the appeal would be rendered moot by the outcome of that motion and that the merits of the appeal did not justify an extension of time.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the respondent, Christina Marcotte.

The appellant, Justin Aghayere Omoragbon, sought leave to appeal his 26-month sentence for breaking and entering a dwelling-house.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by not accepting the 18-month sentence proposed by the Crown and later adopted by the defence.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no joint submission on sentence, no violation of the principles in R. v. Nahanee or R. v. Anthony-Cook, and that the sentencing judge properly considered the mitigating factors and the appellant’s circumstances.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to re-open her application for leave to appeal a 2015 summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit.

This was her third such application, each raising similar Charter arguments previously dismissed by the courts.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no material change in circumstances and dismissed the application as entirely without merit.

The court further prohibited Ms. Hart from filing any further documents regarding her 2015 conviction without written permission from a judge of the court.

The appellant, Zachary Wittke, sought a fresh psychiatric assessment under section 672.11 of the Criminal Code, arguing that it would demonstrate psychiatric disorders relevant to his mens rea for murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that a prior assessment at trial already addressed these issues and that no new evidence justified a further assessment.

The court held that strategic decisions at trial and the absence of new or flawed evidence did not warrant a new assessment at the appeal stage.

The appellant, Ahmed Ali Debouk, appealed his convictions for extortion, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breaching a non-communication condition, arguing his guilty pleas were involuntary due to pre-trial detention pressures and that his Charter rights were violated by non-disclosure of a voice mail recording.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in either ground, holding that the pleas were voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and that there was no evidence of non-disclosure or prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion for restrictions on access to the court file and decision in a Hague Convention child abduction appeal, where the child had been granted refugee status.

The appellant sought anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of documents created under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court reviewed the open court principle, the best interests of the child, and the test for discretionary limits on openness from Sherman Estate v. Donovan.

The court ordered anonymization, a publication ban, and sealing of IRPA documents, but declined to seal the entire file, balancing the child’s privacy and safety against the public interest in court openness.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of three decisions arising from a single summary judgment motion regarding the status of a disputed portion of a road ("Road A") in the Township of Coleman.

The appellants sought a declaration that the road was a public, common, or access road to facilitate subdivision approval and claimed damages for alleged municipal misfeasance.

The court found no error in the motion judge’s use of partial summary judgment, nor in his findings that the road was neither a public nor common road.

The court also dismissed motions to admit fresh evidence and denied leave to appeal the costs order.

This decision concerns competing applications for declaratory relief between the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of Canada and the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America regarding membership and voting rights in the Canadian corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s finding that a 2015 bylaw creating two classes of members (one voting, one non-voting) remained in force, and that a subsequent attempt to restore voting rights to personal members via federal continuance was ultra vires without a special resolution.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, Kyle Watson, appealed his sentence for robbery and failure to comply with a release order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s application of the principles of restraint and consideration of the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing judge had taken into account the appellant’s Indigenous identity, personal history, and the conditions of pre-sentence custody, and provided appropriate credit for time served.

The sentence imposed was found to be within a reasonable range given the circumstances.

The appellant, M.J., appealed the dismissal of her habeas corpus application seeking Charter remedies for damages following her transfer between detention facilities while facing a charge of second-degree murder.

The application judge found the matter moot as M.J. had been released on bail prior to the hearing.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from a stay of proceedings in a sexual assault case, finding that the premature disclosure of defence materials to the complainant’s counsel was an innocent error and did not result in prejudice to trial fairness.

The court held that a stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy reserved for the clearest of cases and that alternative remedies were available.

The matter was remitted for trial before a different judge.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.E.'s appeal from his designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

The court found no reversible error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the evidence, including expert psychiatric testimony regarding the appellant’s risk and treatability.

The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that J.E. posed a high risk of recidivism and that available controls and treatments would not adequately manage his risk to the public.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Lorne Rappaport’s appeal from convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation.

The appellant, a hockey coach, was found to have engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant, who was 15 at the time.

The appeal alleged misapprehension of evidence and improper application of legal principles regarding credibility.

The Court found no material misapprehension and held that the trial judge’s credibility findings and application of the law were reasonable and thorough.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a motion to quash an appeal in a family law matter concerning a motion for a sealing order and publication ban to protect a child’s privacy.

The court held that the order under appeal was interlocutory, not final, and thus any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The decision reviews the distinction between interlocutory and final orders, emphasizing that privacy and sealing orders are generally collateral to the main issues in family law proceedings and do not determine substantive rights.

The court also declined to reconstitute itself as the Divisional Court.