Lise Favreau

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision enforcing a settlement agreement between the respondent mortgagee and the appellants regarding mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The appellants argued the settlement agreement was unenforceable because the mortgagee failed to comply with notice requirements under section 244(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act before enforcing its mortgage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellants had voluntarily relinquished any claim based on section 244 when they entered into the settlement agreement with full knowledge of that claim, having previously raised it in their statement of defence.

The court found no basis for appellate intervention and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed a 9-year global sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that he did not receive adequate credit for presentence custody given the hardship endured.

Although the trial judge accepted the appellant's account of hardship and granted 3:1 credit, duty counsel submitted that the trial judge may have misapprehended the appellant's primary submission for a time-served sentence.

The appellate court found no error warranting interference, noting that the trial judge provided significant credit for hardship and properly rejected the time-served submission based on the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's degree of responsibility.

The appellant appealed his guilty pleas to operation of a vehicle while disqualified and obstruction of an officer, as well as his sentence of 18 months in custody.

The appellant sought to strike his plea on the basis that he did not understand the consequences of pleading guilty.

The Court of Appeal found no basis for allowing the conviction appeal, noting that the appellant acknowledged understanding the Crown's position and the consequences during the plea inquiry, and provided no fresh evidence to support his claim.

The court also found no error in the sentence, given the appellant's twenty prior similar convictions.

The conviction appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal the sentence was allowed but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

Appeal from a summary judgment order finding the appellants liable for civil fraud in connection with a fraudulent warranty repair scheme.

The appellants, through Eaton Equipment Ltd., submitted falsified invoices and receipts to Canadian Tire Corporation for repairs that were never performed, resulting in losses exceeding $3.2 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment against all appellants except Carleigh Milburn, finding that the motion judge's reasoning regarding her knowledge of the fraud was insufficiently explained and contained an inferential gap.

The appeal was allowed in part as it relates to Carleigh Milburn, but dismissed as it relates to the other appellants.

The appellants, Olympia Trust Company and William Loucks, appealed a motion judge's order discharging a second mortgage on property owned by the respondents.

The respondents had borrowed funds from First Swiss Mortgage Corp., which assigned the mortgage to Olympia as bare trustee.

When the respondents refinanced and paid out the mortgage to First Swiss, the discharge was never registered and First Swiss misappropriated the funds.

The motion judge found that First Swiss was acting as Olympia's agent in receiving the payout and discharging the mortgage based on the terms of agreements between First Swiss and Loucks and the course of dealings between the parties.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellants sought to appeal an order granting leave to the respondent bank to issue a writ of possession.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as appeals from final orders of an associate judge must be brought to the Divisional Court, and appeals from interlocutory orders must be brought to a single judge of the Superior Court.

The motion to quash was granted and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants commenced an action against the respondent, a personal injury lawyer, for damages arising from the non-payment of referral fees allegedly owed under an oral contract spanning 1984 to 2018.

The appellants claimed entitlement to 10% of gross settlements or awards on over 130 referred lawsuits.

The respondent denied the existence of any contract and brought a summary judgment motion relying on denial of contract, alleged illegality, and limitation defences.

The motion judge found genuine issues requiring trial regarding contract existence and legality but granted partial summary judgment on limitation grounds, dismissing claims for lawsuits settling before December 10, 2017.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the contract and in failing to recognize that the cause of action did not arise until the relationship ended in 2018.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly determined that the cause of action accrued when each referred lawsuit settled and payment was not made, regardless of whether the full extent of damages was known.

Appeal of a family law trial decision involving a short marriage with a religious ceremony in July 2017 and civil ceremony in April 2019.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims for a resulting or constructive trust in the matrimonial home and for equalization of net family property, finding the appellant not credible due to inconsistent financial disclosure, use of false names, doctored bank statements, and manipulative conduct.

The trial judge imputed annual income of $86,553 to the appellant for child support purposes, awarded the respondent a $20,000 Mehr payment under the marriage contract, and ordered costs of $85,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors, no denial of natural justice, no bias, and no basis to interfere with the costs award.

The appellants sought to advance a new theory regarding a 15-degree bend in the property boundary line between their lot and the respondent's lot on Jack Lake.

This theory was based on new expert evidence obtained after the Court of Appeal's 2020 decision, which had remitted the matter back to the Superior Court to determine the location of the water's edge in 1902 and related issues.

The motion judge dismissed the appellants' second application as a collateral attack on the 2020 order.

The Court of Appeal upheld this dismissal, finding the second application constituted an abuse of process because the bend theory could and should have been raised in the original application.

The court also rejected the appellants' alternative motion to vary the 2020 order.

Appeal of a summary judgment motion where the motion judge found that the appellant and respondent had entered into a valid partnership agreement to acquire, renovate, and rent a property in Scarborough.

The respondent contributed to the purchase price and renovation costs but only the appellant's name was on title.

The appellant obtained mortgages exceeding the parties' agreement without the respondent's consent.

The motion judge granted declaratory relief recognizing the respondent's 50 percent interest in the property via resulting trust, issued a permanent injunction against harassment and interference, and ordered a reference to determine damages.

The appellant appealed on grounds of procedural fairness, text message interpretation, and appropriateness of summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasoning or application of the summary judgment process.

The appellants, a corporation and its sole officer/director, appealed a summary judgment foreclosure decision.

The respondent held a first mortgage on a residential property in Niagara Falls.

The appellants failed to pay the mortgage when it matured on February 2, 2023.

The appellants argued the mortgage was invalid because the respondent had not signed the commitment letter, and raised various other defenses including allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and that a lease with a tenant barred foreclosure.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for foreclosure, payment, and possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the mortgage was validly executed as evidenced by payment of funds and registration of the charge, and rejecting all other arguments as unsupported by evidence.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application to quash the suspension of his driver's licence.

The suspension was imposed under section 41(1)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act following the appellant's guilty plea to impaired driving in New York State, pursuant to a reciprocal agreement between Ontario and New York.

The central issue was whether the guilty plea and conditional discharge in New York constituted a conviction under Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the statutory provision and properly disposed of all issues raised, including natural justice and Charter arguments.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the absence of a transcript of the oral hearing prejudiced his appeal rights.

The appellant was convicted of multiple firearm-related offences following a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown's case relied heavily on two statements made by the appellant to police on May 18, 2020.

The appellant appealed, arguing that he was detained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence without being advised of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that his subsequent arrest was unlawful.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in concluding the appellant was not psychologically detained when police questioned him in the garage of his home during the search warrant execution.

The court held that the appellant's ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were violated, and that his arrest was consequently unlawful, constituting a breach of s. 9.

However, applying the s. 24(2) test, the court determined that the statements should not be excluded from evidence, as the admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, mother of a man who killed his father, appealed a motion judge's order striking her negligence claim against two psychiatrists who treated her son.

The motion judge had struck the claim alleging negligence in treatment, finding no established duty of care and that imposing such a duty would create an impossible conflict with the duty owed to the patient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the duty of care was not within an established category, the conflict analysis was speculative and should be determined on a proper evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving child protection and medical treatment of pregnant women, emphasizing that the patient and his parents shared a common interest in appropriate treatment.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision in a failed real estate transaction.

The respondent seller brought an action for breach of contract after the appellant buyer failed to close due to inability to obtain financing.

The respondent subsequently sold the property at a lower price and recovered damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial and no error in the motion judge's application of law to the facts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment award of $366,513 in damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The appellant had waived the financing condition in an agreement of purchase and sale for $1,252,500 but failed to close due to lack of financing.

The respondents subsequently sold the property for $965,000.

The motion judge found the respondents had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their damages by refusing the appellant's subsequent offer to purchase at a lower price, particularly given the appellant's prior default and lack of proof of financing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no errors in the motion judge's legal analysis or assessment of evidence and no basis for interfering with the denial of the adjournment request.

The moving party sought to set aside on consent a trial judgment declaring that it was not a bona fide purchaser without notice of a residential property.

The trial judge had made significant negative credibility findings against witnesses called on behalf of the moving party and its predecessor in title.

The Court of Appeal refused to allow the appeal on consent, holding that courts cannot set aside judgments based solely on party agreement without considering whether doing so would be appropriate in light of the law and facts, and whether it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court found that setting aside the judgment, which incorporated findings of misconduct, would undermine the administration of justice.

The appellant was convicted after a jury trial of multiple criminal offences involving domestic abuse and sexual assault of his former domestic partner.

He appealed his convictions on two grounds: (1) that the jury charge on myths and stereotypes was imbalanced and insufficient, and (2) that the jury instruction on prior consistent statements was inadequate.

He also sought leave to appeal his five-year sentence for sexual assault, arguing it was excessive and based on a misapprehension of evidence regarding his conduct in other relationships.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge, while not perfect, was functional and equipped jurors to decide the case according to law.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the five-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the severity of the offence and the offender's moral culpability.

On appeal from a Superior Court decision, the mother challenged the appeal judge's order upholding an extended society care order and varying her access status from access recipient to access holder.

The mother argued that the appeal judge should have ordered a new trial on all issues due to a finding of procedural unfairness regarding the access holder determination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a breach of procedural fairness on a discrete issue does not require a new trial on all matters when the appellate court can properly decide the issue based on the evidentiary record.

The court admitted fresh evidence but found it did not change the outcome, as the evidence supported the extended society care order.

The appellants sought a panel review of a motion judge's decision denying their extension of time to perfect materials for a panel review of a prior decision dismissing their appeal for delay.

The underlying dispute concerned unpaid storage costs and the respondents' rights to sell stored property under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The appellants requested an adjournment citing injuries from a motor vehicle accident but failed to provide adequate medical documentation.

The appellants also requested recusal of one judge based on alleged bias, which was denied.

The panel upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to deny the extension of time, finding no reversible error in the application of the governing principles and noting that the appeal had become moot as the property had been auctioned.