Lois B. Roberts

The appellants sought to appeal the dismissal of their motion to stay the action and, for one appellant, the trial judgment finding conspiracy, joint and several liability, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages.

The trial judge had found that a former supervisory employee breached his fiduciary duty by securing construction work for his own companies, accruing over $10 million in profits, and that his common-law wife was deeply involved.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no basis for appellate intervention.

The court held that the appeal of the stay motion dismissal was not properly before it due to a failure to appeal the original order within the prescribed deadline.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the conspiracy and disgorgement.

The appellant, Mustaf Yusuf, was on judicial interim release pending his appeal, with conditions including remaining in Ontario and surrendering for the appeal hearing.

His counsel advised the court that he failed to surrender because he was in prison in Somalia, breaching his release conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned, in accordance with the terms of the release order, and issued a warrant for his arrest.

This is a costs endorsement following the disposition of three appeals.

The parties settled the issue of costs by agreement.

The appellant was ordered to pay costs of $13,750, all inclusive, to the respondents.

The Pointer Group Incorporated brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal and the underlying action and anti-SLAPP motion, pursuant to Rule 61.06(1)(a) and (c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving party argued the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant, Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, had insufficient assets.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate that the appeal was both frivolous and vexatious, or that Dr. Gill had insufficient assets.

The court also found no "other good reason" to order security for costs, as the appeal presented arguable errors of law and there was no indication of vexatious conduct or difficulty in collecting costs from Dr. Gill.

Dr. Gill was awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,000 for the motion.

The appellant, Michael Belleus, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder.

The appeal was based on three grounds: the admission of a deceased witness's hearsay police statement, the trial judge's inquiry into juror apprehension of bias, and the jury instruction on aiding and abetting first-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three grounds, finding that the hearsay statement met the threshold reliability test under R. v. Bradshaw, the juror inquiry was sufficient, and the jury instructions on aiding and abetting were clear when read as a whole.

The conviction was upheld.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision concerning the assessment of a solicitor's bill.

The appellant, a former client, challenged the reversal of two reductions made by an assessment officer: one for annual hourly rate increases without sufficient notice, and another for the law firm's failure to pursue a costs award at the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the retainer agreement provided adequate notice for rate increases up to $25 per year, especially given the client received independent legal advice.

The court also found the assessment officer erred in principle by granting a reduction for a claim of professional negligence that the client was already pursuing in a separate civil action and had not sought in the assessment hearing.

The appellant, Voreon Inc., appealed the dismissal of three applications arising from a business relationship breakdown.

Two appeals concerned real estate developments (Higher Living and Eminence Living) and the interpretation of a Settlement Agreement versus a shareholders agreement regarding promissory notes.

The third appeal (MHH appeal) involved a mortgage's validity, a set-off claim for a promissory note, and the transfer of condominium units.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Higher Living and Eminence Living appeals, affirming the application judge's finding that the Settlement Agreement superseded the shareholders agreement and discharged the promissory notes.

However, the MHH appeal was allowed in part, remitting the issues of the $64,135 set-off note and the transfer of the parking/storage units to the Superior Court for adjudication, citing unaddressed issues and a palpable error regarding party status.

The self-represented moving parties sought an extension of time to file their notice of appeal from orders dated July 6, 2023, and September 7, 2023, concerning a dispute over property partition and sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no timely intention to appeal, inordinate and inadequately explained delay, and a lack of discernible merit, particularly regarding jurisdictional issues as appeals from Partition Act orders lie with the Divisional Court, and appeals from associate judges' orders lie with the Superior Court or Divisional Court, not the Court of Appeal.

The court also found no error in the lower court's partition and sale order or the associate judge's case management role, and noted significant prejudice to the responding party due to delay.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that granted forfeiture of their deposit and damages for breach of a pre-construction Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants had advised the respondent they were unable to close and claimed a separate oral contract existed allowing assignment.

They also argued the respondent failed to mitigate damages by selling the property for significantly less.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision that no oral contract was proven and that the respondent's mitigation efforts were reasonable, as the appellants provided no evidence to the contrary regarding property valuation or market prices.

The appellant, Victor Opara, sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal of a summary judgment that dismissed his motion for a mandatory order requiring the respondent to provide automobile insurance particulars.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for an extension, finding that the appellant failed to adequately explain the delay in perfecting the appeal, the appeal itself was devoid of merit (as the primary relief sought had already been provided), and the continuation of a meritless appeal caused prejudice to the respondent by depriving him of finality.

The appellant's solicitors, Stieber Berlach LLP, moved for an order removing them as solicitors of record for the appellant, Jeremy Williams, citing an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship due to the client's lack of communication, failure to follow instructions, and non-compliance with the retainer agreement.

The appellant opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the relationship had broken down and that the appellant would not be materially prejudiced, despite the upcoming appeal hearing.

The court emphasized that the client's desire for the solicitor to continue is not determinative if the circumstances justify withdrawal.

This motion was brought by the appellant's solicitors, Miller Thomson LLP, seeking an order to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, primarily stemming from the appellant's failure to pay accounts and provide instructions.

The respondent opposed the immediate removal, arguing it would prejudice their pending motion to lift a stay of enforcement and obtain security for appeal costs, especially given an imminent receivership application against the appellant.

The court exercised its discretion to refuse immediate removal, ordering that the solicitors would only be removed after the disposition of the respondent's motion, finding this approach prevented prejudice to the respondent and upheld the administration of justice without unduly prejudicing the moving solicitors or their client.

The appellant, S.T., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The appeal raised two grounds: the trial judge's findings regarding the appellant's sobriety were unreasonable and erroneous, and the trial judge's finding of partiality in a defence witness was not supported by evidence and led to an erroneous rejection of their testimony.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material, reversible error.

The court held that the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's intoxication was within their purview and did not require expert evidence.

While the finding of witness partiality was problematic due to lack of opportunity for the parties to respond, it was deemed not material to the overall assessment of evidence or the trial's outcome, and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCR), appealed an Ontario Review Board (ORB) disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the ORB's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety and affirmed the majority's decision for a detention order, rejecting the appellant's request for an absolute or conditional discharge.

However, the court amended the detention order to include specific directives for the hospital to explore culturally appropriate programs, housing, and care for the appellant, particularly in Owen Sound, in accordance with Gladue principles.

The appellant, K.C., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, having abandoned his sentence appeal.

The incident involved conflicting accounts of a sexual encounter.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's testimony, finding it contradicted by text messages, and accepted the complainant's evidence as logical, consistent, and supported by other evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error or material misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, affirming the high degree of deference owed to credibility findings on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Rachard Holder, appealed his convictions for attempted murder and related firearm offences, and his life sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's jury instruction on prior identification statements, arguing they were not sufficiently close in time to the incident.

The Court of Appeal found no error, affirming that the "entire identification process" is probative, consistent with R. v. Tat.

The sentence appeal alleged errors in considering lack of remorse as an aggravating factor and future dangerousness.

The Court held that the trial judge properly applied R. v. Shah, using lack of remorse to indicate lack of insight and future dangerousness for deterrence, not as an aggravating factor.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, Julien Jutras, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient.

He contended that the trial judge failed to adequately address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and an alleged motive for her to fabricate evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that while it would have been preferable for the trial judge to explicitly address these points, the reasons, when read holistically and in context, were not insufficient.

The court noted that the trial judge clearly accepted the complainant's evidence, which was supported by the graphic photos, and that a failure to explain the rejection of a submission does not render reasons deficient if the acceptance of contrary evidence is clear.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a co-founder of a technology company, appealed the dismissal of his application for an oppression remedy under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The application judge had focused narrowly on the employment agreement, finding no reasonable expectation of indefinite employment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred by failing to consider the appellant's reasonable expectations as a shareholder and director, and by focusing solely on the written agreements rather than the broader equitable context of the oppression remedy.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for a trial to resolve factual disputes and credibility issues.

The appellant, Steven Browne, sought leave to appeal a 14-year sentence imposed following guilty pleas to attempted murder with a firearm and discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

He argued the sentencing judge erred by exceeding the Crown's suggested range and by failing to give adequate credit for collateral consequences (Suter factors), disadvantaged background (Morris factors), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan factors).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or unfitness in the sentence, and that the sentencing judge properly considered the relevant factors without disproportionately reducing the sentence.

The appellant, David Norris, appealed his indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender, arguing the sentencing judge erred in reversing the onus of proof, misapprehending psychiatric evidence, and misusing Correctional Services Canada evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge applied the correct legal framework despite a misstatement on onus, properly considered the psychiatric evidence, and appropriately relied on the Correctional Services Canada evidence regarding supervision differences.