Lise Favreau

The appellant, a corporate officer and sole director, appealed a judgment finding him personally liable for civil fraud arising from his company's failure to deliver 3 million NIOSH certified N95 masks during the COVID-19 pandemic to a Quebec hospital network, after receiving over US$11 million in advance payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct threshold for recklessness in finding civil fraud and that the law clearly supports personal liability of officers and directors for fraudulent conduct, without needing to assess whether the conduct was "tortious in itself" or exhibited a "separate identity or interest."

The appellants brought an application seeking wide-ranging relief regarding the operation of the respondent gun club and the finances of all three respondents.

The application judge dismissed the application on the basis of lack of standing, a full and final release previously signed by the appellants, and the expiry of the limitation period.

On appeal, the appellants attempted to argue the merits afresh without addressing the application judge's dispositive findings.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the appeal, holding the release barred the claims and the limitation period had expired, and dismissed the appeal with costs of $22,000 to the respondents.

The appellant was convicted of intimidation of a justice system participant, criminal harassment, uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, and two counts of breach of undertaking arising from a sustained campaign of social media posts, threats, and communications targeting an OPP officer.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge failed to address the mens rea for the specific intent offences of intimidation and criminal harassment and erred in convicting on one breach of undertaking count.

The Court of Appeal held that the requisite mens rea findings were implicit in the trial judge's meticulous description of the appellant's conduct, which gave rise to irresistible inferences of intent.

However, the court set aside the conviction on the breach of undertaking count alleging the appellant went where the complainant was known to be, finding the trial judge misdescribed the count and failed to make findings supporting the conviction.

The appellant pleaded guilty to unprovoked aggravated assault against a fellow NCR resident, causing severe life-threatening injuries and permanent serious brain damage.

He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, less credit for presentence custody.

On appeal, the appellant argued the sentencing judge erred in failing to further reduce his sentence to reflect the harsh presentence custody conditions he experienced due to his mental illness.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, holding that the sentencing judge expressly considered and gave credit for the appellant's mental health difficulties in custody and imposed a sentence at the lower end of the appropriate range.

A law firm appealed an application judge’s decision interpreting a contingency fee retainer agreement and rejecting its claim to a share of damages awarded on appeal.

The client had retained new counsel for the appeal, which resulted in a substantial damages award after an unsuccessful trial.

The firm argued it was entitled to fees under the retainer or alternatively on a quantum meruit basis.

The Court of Appeal held that the retainer expressly limited fee entitlement to damages recovered by settlement or judgment at trial and did not include recovery obtained on appeal.

The court also held that quantum meruit relief was unavailable where the parties had expressly defined the circumstances of payment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Rule 2.01 order dismissing his action concerning the respondent's mortgage.

The court held the action raised no valid issue and found the motion judge's reasons were thorough.

No error warranting appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed to the respondent.

In a commercial lease dispute, the appellants challenged findings that the landlord breached the lease and acted in bad faith by terminating access to loading facilities central to the tenant’s business operations.

The court upheld the application judge’s lease interpretation, including that contractual improvements and related access rights could not be nullified through redesignation of common areas.

The court also upheld the finding of repudiatory breach, rejecting the argument that temporary restoration under a without prejudice consent order cured the breach.

A new argument that the tenant had irrevocably affirmed the lease was not entertained on appeal and was unpersuasive in any event.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict dismissing her negligence action against the respondent homeowners after she slipped and fell on their staircase.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in excluding the first set of expert slip resistance testing, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's gatekeeping decision under the White Burgess framework, as the excluded testing differed materially from the actual conditions.

Even if the exclusion were erroneous, no miscarriage of justice resulted because the tampering theory was still advanced at trial through other evidence and the jury's verdict turned on the credibility of the parties.

The appellant appealed her conviction for second degree murder arising from a home invasion during which her uncle was fatally stabbed.

The Crown's theory was that the appellant organized the break-in intending for the deceased to be killed by her co-accused.

The Court of Appeal found two errors in the jury charge: first, the jury was not adequately instructed about the limited probative value of the appellant's after-the-fact conduct if they rejected the Crown's theory that the killing was planned; second, the jury was not properly instructed that the appellant's partially exculpatory police statements could contribute to a reasonable doubt even if not affirmatively believed.

The curative proviso was not applied, as the Crown's case on murder was not overwhelming.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial on second degree murder was ordered.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring the respondent the beneficial owner of 15% of a corporation's shares and finding their conduct oppressive under the OBCA.

The appellants narrowed their appeal to challenge only the order requiring production of financial statements dating back to 2014.

The Court of Appeal held that the production order was ancillary to the respondent's damages claim, not a standalone shareholder rights claim subject to a limitation period, and that compliance required only producing existing documents.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $30,000.

The moving parties sought to re-open a dismissed appeal more than three years after this court dismissed their appeal from a summary judgment order enforcing four mortgages.

The court considered the motion under r. 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found it frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving parties failed to meet the high threshold for re-opening, having raised unsustainable allegations of fraud and misconduct that were or could have been previously advanced.

The motion to re-open was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory order of the Superior Court refusing to order payment into court of a "costs reserve." The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, characterizing the order as interlocutory and akin to an order dismissing a motion for security for costs.

The court directed that an appeal from such an order must be brought to the Divisional Court, with leave.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the agreed amount of $7,500 all inclusive.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

The appellants challenged dismissal of their action as an abuse of process.

The court agreed the claim repeated issues from prior mortgage litigation and also dismissed the fresh-evidence motion.

Two defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding substantial damages for breach of fuel-delivery contracts and for inducing breach.

The court upheld findings that Remote breached contract and good faith duties, that Wasaya induced the breach, and that mitigation findings were available on the record.

However, it held the trial judge erred by not applying the contractual limitation clause, reducing Remote’s liability to $50,000 while leaving Wasaya liable for $856,458.

The appellant advanced two criminal appeals and sought an adjournment to retain counsel and add new grounds.

The court refused adjournment, found no reversible error in conviction or sentencing processes, and held the appellant had already received ample procedural accommodation.

Both appeals were dismissed.

Case management direction on scheduling intervention motions and the hearing date for an appeal from the dismissal of a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding alleging systemic failures in the child welfare system respecting Indigenous children in out-of-home care off-reserve, including over-representation in care and gaps in essential services such as health and education.

The case management judge directed that intervention motion materials be filed by March 5, 2026, responding materials by April 10, 2026, and intervention motions be heard May 8, 2026.

The appeal was scheduled for two days in June or early fall 2026.

The appellant, a dangerous offender with an extensive history of child sexual offences, appealed his sentence of 20 months imposed for breaching a long-term supervision order and prohibition orders under section 161 of the Criminal Code.

The breach occurred when he attended a religious service in a church in the presence of numerous children, merely 30 days after being released to a community correctional centre.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: (1) entitlement to sentence credit for the period between suspension of his long-term supervision order and the laying of charges; (2) the trial judge's allocation of pre-sentence credit at a ratio of 1:1.3 instead of 1:1.5 and the denial of a Duncan credit; and (3) that the sentence was imposed to ensure federal detention for treatment purposes.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the sentence fit and imposed without error.