Lisa Loader

The appellants appealed a trial judgment on three grounds: the trial judge's credibility assessments, alleged collusion by one respondent with witnesses, and prejudice from a five-month trial adjournment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's credibility findings were adequately explained within the context of the entire judgment and were warranted on the evidence.

The court found no evidentiary support for the collusion allegation, noting that the witnesses' trial testimony was inconsistent with the "will-say" statements allegedly prepared by the respondent, making collusion implausible.

The court rejected the adjournment argument, holding that absent demonstrated actual prejudice or a request for an earlier date at trial, a five-month adjournment does not presumptively require a new trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendants sought costs following a 20-day trial where the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendants succeeded on their counterclaim.

The court awarded the first group of defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct, which amounted to elder abuse.

The second group of defendants was awarded partial indemnity costs, as the claims against them were not found to be vexatious.

Total costs of over $325,000 were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs, a couple who sponsored the immigration of the wife's elderly parents (the Nikityuks) from Russia, sued the parents and the YMCA (and an employee) for inducing breach of contract, negligence, conspiracy, and defamation after the parents moved out of their shared home into social housing.

The Nikityuks counterclaimed for fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, seeking damages for lost capital and a constructive trust on the home.

The court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims, finding no malice or unlawful conduct by the YMCA defendants.

The court granted the Nikityuks' counterclaim, finding that the plaintiffs had financially abused the Nikityuks, breached their contract and fiduciary duties, and committed civil fraud by misrepresenting investment returns on the Nikityuks' capital, which was subsequently lost in the stock market.

The Nikityuks were awarded damages for their lost capital, interest, a constructive trust on the Innisfil property, and punitive damages.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her application for income support under the Ontario Disability Support Program Act.

The tribunal had found that her impairments, including social phobia and anxiety, were not substantial and she did not meet the definition of a person with a disability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tribunal's weighing of the evidence to determine if impairments were substantial did not raise an extricable question of law.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault convictions, seeking to introduce fresh evidence consisting of a death certificate for the complainant's younger brother.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding it was determinative of a factual issue regarding the timing of the alleged offences.

The evidence raised a real question as to whether the appellant committed the assaults as an adult or a juvenile.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants, the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario, appealed a decision regarding the enforcement of sponsorship debts against eight sponsors whose relatives received social assistance.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the government has a duty to collect the full sponsorship debt, it retains a limited discretion to defer enforcement based on a sponsor's circumstances.

In exercising this discretion, the government owes a minimal duty of procedural fairness to notify the sponsor, allow them to explain their circumstances, consider those circumstances, and notify them of the decision.

The Court found that Ontario's debt collection policy did not improperly fetter its discretion and met the requirements of procedural fairness.

The accused was convicted of sexual offences and sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction several years later.

A single judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, but a three-judge panel subsequently granted it.

The Crown applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction to overturn a single judge's decision.

The Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the leave application under section 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, overruling previous jurisprudence to the contrary.

However, the Court dismissed the application, finding that it raised no question of sufficient importance to warrant granting leave.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer.

At trial, the appellant raised an alibi defence, claiming he was at home with his mother at the time of the offence.

The trial judge found that the alibi had not been adequately disclosed to the police, as the mother's statements at the police station were disjointed and focused on the time of arrest rather than the time of the offence.

Consequently, the trial judge drew an adverse inference against the alibi evidence and convicted the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that proper disclosure of an alibi requires adequacy and timeliness to permit meaningful police investigation.

The majority found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the mother's statements lacked sufficient detail and coherence to constitute adequate disclosure.