Lise Favreau

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the striking out of her statement of claim without leave to amend.

Her claim sought further compensation for alleged racial discrimination, arguing that correspondence with the CEO constituted a binding agreement, despite having signed a full and final release upon dismissal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that the letters did not form an enforceable contract and that the elements of promissory estoppel were not pleaded.

The court reiterated that claims with no reasonable chance of success should be struck.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's order dismissing a motion to strike an action.

The motion judge had declared the respondent's claims timely and within the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by declaring the claim timely and precluding the appellant from raising a limitations defence on a Rule 21 motion, as fact-finding is generally not appropriate at that stage.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction over the matter.

The appeal was allowed in part, striking the order that precluded the limitations defence.

The appellant, Nicholas Wong, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

He was convicted of two counts of attempted murder with a firearm and other related offences.

The Crown sought the dangerous offender designation based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour, including prior firearm possession offences.

Wong argued the sentencing judge erred by considering firearm possession as part of the pattern and by admitting expert evidence on gang affiliation and prior gun use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the sentencing judge's determination that Wong met the dangerous offender criteria, nor in the admission of the challenged evidence.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision that sections 462.37(3) and (4) of the Criminal Code, concerning fines in lieu of forfeiture and default imprisonment, were unconstitutional under s. 12 of the Charter in certain foreseeable circumstances.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was bound by a prior ONCA decision (R. v. Chung) and, in the alternative, that the provisions do not violate s. 12 as they serve a different purpose than victim surcharges and offer judicial discretion and flexibility.

The appellants, Leopold and Matthiew Mercier, appealed their seven-year jail sentences for commercial drug trafficking and related offences, arguing the sentences were unfit given their Indigenous background and the absence of Gladue Reports at sentencing.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and admitted fresh Gladue Reports as evidence.

However, the court dismissed the appeals, finding that despite the Gladue factors, the original sentences, which were based on joint submissions and fell at the lower end of the applicable range for such serious commercial trafficking, remained fit, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant landlord appealed a motion judge's decision not to terminate a commercial tenancy and grant a writ of possession, despite the tenant's late payment of outstanding rent.

The Court of Appeal determined it lacked jurisdiction because the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the substantive rights in the ongoing action.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court for the appellant to seek leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario summarily dismissed an appeal brought by the appellant, Stewart Wilson, under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent, Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari, requested the dismissal, arguing the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the appeal, stemming from long-standing, acrimonious litigation, was an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided and to indirectly participate in a trial where the appellant's pleadings had been struck due to contempt.

The court concluded that allowing the appeal to proceed would be an abuse of process, citing the appellant's history of wasteful litigation, failure to pay costs, and relitigation of settled issues.

The appellant, Vadim Ilia, appealed convictions for accessing and possessing child pornography, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants.

The trial judge had found a Charter violation due to a misdescription in one warrant but admitted the evidence, and relied on a prior 2015 investigation to establish reasonable grounds for the warrants, despite the Crown's concession against its use for that purpose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2015 investigation was properly available for consideration and, in any event, there was no "gap" in the reasonable grounds for the warrants, as the possibility of third-party internet access was not sufficiently weighty to undermine the probability of the IP address being used by someone at the linked address.

The appellant, Tyrone Burton, appealed his convictions for human trafficking, receiving a benefit from human trafficking, exercising control for the purpose of receiving a benefit from prostitution, and obstruction of justice, as well as his sentence of 10.5 years in custody and a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, with the exception of two counts of exercising control which were stayed by Crown concession under the Kienapple principle.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the sentence fit and within range, and upholding the long-term supervision order.

The court rejected arguments regarding the trial judge's application of law, questioning of witnesses, use of evidence, and the appellant's opportunity to testify.

The appellant, S.M.C., sought to appeal a sexual assault conviction but failed to perfect the appeal despite numerous court appearances, extensions, and warnings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned, citing egregious and persistent non-compliance with court directions, including a prior failure to comply with bail conditions.

The court emphasized that the justice system cannot operate effectively if court orders are disregarded.

The appellant, a live-in caregiver, appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of her judicial review application.

She sought special priority status for subsidized housing, arguing she was abused by her employer and financially dependent on them.

The Regional Municipality of Peel denied this, asserting the relationship was not familial and financial dependence ceased with employment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the Region's decision was reasonable, deferring to the administrative body's interpretation of "financially dependent" within the Housing Services Act, 2011, especially given the need to allocate scarce resources.

The Court found the Divisional Court did not err by providing additional context for the Region's decision.

Charlas MacKenzie, eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance, had his subsidy terminated by Ottawa Community Housing Corporation and the City of Ottawa.

This was due to his failure to report a change in household composition (daughters removed due to bail conditions) and prolonged absence from his unit (required to live with surety).

The Divisional Court dismissed his application for judicial review, finding the respondents' decisions reasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the respondents' interpretation and application of the Housing Services Act, 2011 and its regulations regarding reporting changes and absence from the unit to be reasonable, particularly in the context of limited housing subsidies and long waitlists.

The court also found no error in the assessment of extenuating circumstances.

The appellant, Shawn Tedder, appealed his 2018 conviction for marijuana trafficking and his sentence.

He primarily argued that his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellant had expressly waived an 8-month period of delay, resulting in a net delay of 29 months, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling set in R. v. Jordan.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the sentence, which had proceeded as a joint submission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged search warrants, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the affiant and that there were insufficient grounds for the warrants.

The sentence appeal argued the trial judge erred in treating the duration of activities as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in refusing cross-examination or in the warrant's issuance.

It allowed the sentence appeal, converting the nine-month custodial term to a conditional sentence order due to the trial judge's error and mitigating factors.

The appellant, Marc Jean, appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed due to a lack of awareness regarding the significant immigration consequences.

The respondent conceded the appeal should be allowed based on fresh evidence supporting the uninformed plea.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding a reasonable possibility that the appellant would have proceeded differently had he understood the consequences.

The conviction was set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's order finding him in contempt for failing to sign an assessor's retainer, prohibiting him from filing further motions without leave, granting the respondent mother sole decision-making responsibility, and delegating treatment authority for their child.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the grant of sole decision-making authority, finding the father's attempts to modify the retainer were not minor and that the mother's authority was justified by the father's non-compliance.

However, the court found the prohibition on filing further motions without leave was an overreach, as the father was not a vexatious litigant and such a term was not supported by the record, especially given potential future enforcement issues regarding parenting time.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient and that she misapprehended evidence regarding the opportunity to commit the offence.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons sufficient, noting that credibility assessments are complex and that the judge clearly rejected the defence's evidence after a full review of the complainant's testimony.

The court reiterated that incomplete transcripts do not automatically lead to a new trial unless there is a serious possibility of error or deprivation of appeal grounds.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Shafaq Joya, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that imposed a detention order with privileges, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board applied the correct legal test and reasonably determined that a detention order was necessary.

The court emphasized that the Board's decision was based on the brutal nature of the index offence and the need for close monitoring, distinguishing it from cases where expediency alone justified a restrictive disposition.

MBM Intellectual Property Law LLP, the successful party in an appeal, sought substantial indemnity costs of over $76,000 or partial indemnity costs of over $51,000 from Kevin Drizen.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario denied substantial indemnity costs, finding MBM's justification focused on lower court conduct and the amount sought was disproportionate to the $50,000 at issue in the underlying dispute and the non-complex appeal issue.

The court fixed costs at $7,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by Mr. Drizen to MBM.

This appeal concerned the enforcement of letters rogatory issued by a California court in a divorce action, seeking financial disclosure from Canadian corporations and an individual.

The Ontario application judge granted the request, subject to minor refinements.

The appellants, corporate entities associated with the husband, argued procedural errors (lack of service) and substantive errors (wrong test applied, fishing expedition, burden of proof).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the disclosure was relevant to family law obligations and not a fishing expedition, and that the application judge correctly applied the criteria for enforcing letters rogatory, including principles of comity and public policy.

The court also found that the documents were not otherwise obtainable given the husband's history of non-compliance.