Lene Madsen

The applicant, Melissa Hart, sought to reopen her application for leave to appeal a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content over 80mg per 100ml.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed her application, finding that the Charter arguments and evidence she sought to introduce were neither fresh nor novel, as they had already been considered in previous proceedings.

The court held that there was no merit to the application and declined to consider its jurisdiction to reopen a decision not to reopen a dismissal of a leave to appeal application.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the issue of costs following an appeal between the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc.

The court determined that there would be no costs of the appeal, as the determinative issue was not raised before the Divisional Court.

The costs previously ordered by the Divisional Court were set aside.

The appellant, Haytham Elzayat, moved under section 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of Roberts J.A. denying his request to include a transcript of oral argument from the court below in his appeal materials.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the exercise of discretion by Roberts J.A., holding that the transcript was not necessary or relevant for the fair hearing of the appeal.

The motion was dismissed, and costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Manpreet Dhaliwal’s appeal from the trial decision and costs order in her family and civil actions against Hardeep Singh Nijher and his family.

The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial judge’s findings regarding property equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The trial judge’s credibility findings against the appellant were upheld, and the court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The appellant, Zaafir Ahmed Munir, appealed a decision upholding the Town of Milton’s short-term rental bylaw and related enforcement actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Town had authority under the Municipal Act to enact the bylaw, that there was no conflict with the Residential Tenancies Act, and that the appellant’s Charter rights were not infringed.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, K.R., was convicted of obstructing justice in relation to her niece, J.D.R., after attempting to cover up sexual assaults committed by her co-accused, D.V. The trial judge allowed the Crown to amend the information to conform to the evidence, and convicted K.R. on the amended charge.

On appeal, K.R. argued that the amendment caused irreparable prejudice and that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainants’ credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the amendment or the credibility assessment.

The appellant, Seyed Amir Yaghoubi-Araghi, appealed his convictions and sentence for firearm and drug offences following a R.I.D.E. stop, police pursuit, and search that uncovered a handgun and methamphetamine.

He argued that the trial judge erred in failing to exclude the evidence due to breaches of his rights under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge properly recognized the seriousness of the Charter breaches, the evidence was lawfully obtained and the balancing of factors under R. v. Grant did not warrant exclusion.

The conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Doug Lloyd’s appeal from the Superior Court’s refusal to extend time for judicial review of the Crown’s decision to stay his private prosecution against Bell Canada.

The court held that prosecutorial discretion is only reviewable for abuse of process, which requires egregious conduct.

The application judge made no error in law or fact, and the Crown’s decision not to consider expert evidence or to stay the prosecution on public interest grounds did not amount to an abuse of process.

The appellant, A.N., appealed convictions for three counts of sexual interference and three counts of sexual assault, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The appeal focused on whether a 60-day period of delay, attributed by the trial judge to COVID-19 as an exceptional circumstance, was properly deducted from the total delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s reliance on local knowledge and internal court statistics to find the delay was justified, and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Pierre Dartiguenave from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Crown requested dismissal on the basis that Mr. Dartiguenave was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Board, and the appellant could not be located.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.S.'s conviction and sentence appeals for child luring and sexual interference.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the complainant’s evidence or in the allocation of the burden of proof regarding the possibility of a third-party hacker.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge failed to consider the appellant’s personal circumstances or recent appellate guidance on family considerations in sentencing.

The sentence, including the lack of Downes credit for bail conditions, was upheld.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Conal Quinn’s appeal from his conviction for sexual assault.

The court found no reversible error in the trial judge’s exclusion of evidence under section 276 of the Criminal Code, nor in the exclusion of expert evidence regarding methamphetamine use and sexual impulsivity.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasons and the finding that any consent would have been vitiated by abuse of authority.

The decision affirms the trial judge’s careful application of the law regarding sexual history evidence and the proper approach to expert testimony in the context of sexual assault prosecutions.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Garlicky Mediterranean Grill Inc., finding no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s email correspondence did not amount to the exercise of an option to renew the lease.

The court held that the findings below were entitled to deference and awarded costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Berge Marcarian from the trial judge’s determination of the date of separation in his marriage to Karen Nairi Kassabian.

The trial judge found the date of separation to be May 16, 2021, as asserted by the wife, rather than December 10, 2014, as claimed by the husband.

The appellate court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings or application of the law, and that her reasons were sufficient.

The decision provides a comprehensive review of the legal principles and factors relevant to determining the date of separation in family law, emphasizing the objective, fact-driven nature of the analysis and the high deference owed to trial judges on such determinations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The court found that the motion judge erred in law by holding that the purchasers' requisitions regarding oil and gas leases were invalid because they did not go to the root of title.

The court was not satisfied that it could determine the validity of the requisitions on the record before it.

The appellant, K.M., appealed convictions for sexual assault and for choking the complainant to render her incapable of resisting.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge’s reasons were not ideal, they were sufficient when read contextually.

The trial judge’s credibility findings and rejection of the defence theory of fabrication were adequately explained, and the application of the W.(D.) framework was proper.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Krishan Arora, appealed his sentence of seven years and two months for four counts of forcible confinement and one count of extortion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the sentencing judge’s approach to aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not double count aggravating circumstances and properly considered the appellant’s guilty plea, remorse, and gambling debts.

The sentence was found to be fit given the seriousness of the offences and their impact on the victims.

The appellant, Marvin Gurango, appealed his three-year custodial sentence for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no error in principle or law in the sentencing judge’s decision, nor was the sentence manifestly unfit.

The court emphasized the importance of denunciation and deterrence for this offence and found the sentence consistent with similar cases.

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

The appellant, Sasikaran Thanapalasingam, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder of his wife, Tharshika Jeganathan.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis or conclusions.

The court held that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the finding that the murder was planned and deliberate, and that the appellant’s intoxication did not impair his capacity to form the requisite intent.

The trial judge’s consideration of the evidence, including the impact of alcohol and alleged mental disturbance, was thorough and appropriate.

The appellant municipality appealed a Divisional Court order that quashed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision assuming jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a municipal servicing agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, as it only assumed jurisdiction on a prima facie basis and deferred the final determination of forum to the Superior Court.

Because the Ontario Land Tribunal Act only permits appeals of final decisions, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was restored.