Lois B. Roberts

The appellant, S.R., appealed convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The appeal raised two grounds: alleged misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and improper use of the appellant's confession to corroborate the complainant's testimony.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of evidence or the confirmatory use of the confession, affirming that evidence can provide confirmatory weight even if it does not directly implicate the accused, as long as it supports credibility or reliability.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Ezra Harely, appealed his convictions for possession and production of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his 18-month custodial sentence.

The appeal raised three grounds: a flawed s. 8 Charter analysis and admission of seized evidence, improper jury instructions, and the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's s. 8 Charter analysis or findings of fact regarding the search warrants, no reversible error in the jury charge, and no unfitness or error in principle in the imposed custodial sentence given the scale of the operation and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The moving parties sought reconsideration of a prior decision by the Court of Appeal dismissing their appeal, presenting new evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, affirming that such requests are granted only in very exceptional cases and that the new evidence did not undermine the basis for the original appeal dismissal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The appellants, a condominium corporation and its snow removal contractor, appealed a trial decision finding them negligent for a slip and fall injury.

The respondent slipped on an icy roadway that had been plowed but not salted in a timely manner.

The appeal focused on the standard of care, arguing the trial judge misapprehended expert evidence and applied an unreasonable standard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the contractor's delay in applying road salt fell below the reasonable standard of care, given the foreseeable ice formation and the contractor's problematic system for salt application.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on a preliminary jurisdictional question raised by the court itself, rather than on the substantive issues.

The court had determined that neither the application judge nor the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to decide whether a proposed payment would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.

Given these unique circumstances, where the disposition was based on a threshold jurisdictional question posed by the panel and did not determine the underlying substantive issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs below and on appeal.

The husband appealed a lower court decision that set aside two Quebec marriage contracts, which had stipulated separation as to property, thereby allowing the wife to pursue an equalization claim under Ontario's Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision to set aside the contracts.

The basis for setting aside included the husband's failure to disclose significant assets (a $4 million inheritance) and the wife's lack of understanding of the contracts' nature and consequences, particularly regarding her entitlement to share in the income from inherited property, which is not automatically excluded from net family property under Ontario or Quebec law unless expressly stated by the testator/donor.

The appellant, Marvin Smith, appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence, imposed after pleading guilty to aggravated assault, intimidation of a justice system participant, and weapon possession.

The central issue was whether the sentencing judge erred in interpreting "pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour" under s. 753(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, specifically regarding a six-year gap in his criminal history and the admission of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge correctly concluded the appellant exhibited a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour, notwithstanding the gap, and that the indeterminate sentence was appropriate given the high risk of reoffending and intractability.

The appellant, Canada Christian College (CCC), appealed a Divisional Court decision that dismissed its application for judicial review.

CCC challenged the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities' decision not to recommend proclamation of legislation that would grant CCC university status and degree-granting rights, following a negative recommendation from the Post-Secondary Education Quality Assessment Board.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's findings, holding that the Minister's decision to refer CCC's application to the Board was within his authority (intra vires) and that his subsequent decision to delay proclamation was reasonable and not an unlawful attempt to override the Legislature's will.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, clarifying the limits of ministerial discretion regarding legislative proclamation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant wife appealed an 11-day trial decision concerning equalization, child, and spousal support, alleging several errors in law by the trial judge.

The alleged errors included the gross-up rate for taxes, deduction of a renovation loan from business value, calculation of franchise value, and the calculation of the wife's income (specifically regarding CERB payments).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's determinations, affirming that the trial judge's findings were open to her based on the evidence presented, including expert evidence.

The court also dismissed minor alleged errors as insignificant or previously corrected.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

This appeal arose from a personal injury action where the Town of Milton, a defendant, brought a third-party claim against Milton Hydro Distribution Inc. for contribution and indemnity, alleging negligent removal of a street luminaire.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the third-party claim, finding Milton Hydro owed no duty of care and that the Town of Milton's failure to inspect constituted an intervening act breaking causation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by conflating duty of care and causation analyses and incorrectly applying the intervening act doctrine.

The court emphasized that the passage of time alone does not negate foreseeability and that multiple parties can be responsible for harm.

The third-party claim was remitted for trial with the main action.

The appellant vendor appealed a summary judgment that granted specific performance to purchasers of three townhomes and dismissed the vendor's motion for forfeiture of deposits.

The transactions failed to close on the scheduled date due to delayed mortgage funds.

The motion judge found the vendor in anticipatory breach for prematurely terminating the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), ruling that the "time is of the essence" clause did not impose a specific closing time and that the vendor acted unreasonably.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the interpretation of the "time is of the essence" clause or the finding of anticipatory breach and bad faith.

The Court also denied leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle or irrationality in the quantum.

The Bank of Montreal, a creditor, sought to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of real property by Roufat Iskenderov to Elena Lazareva.

The motion judge applied a ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The appellants appealed, arguing the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 applied.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, holding that the two-year limitation period from the date of discovery under the Limitations Act, 2002 applies to fraudulent conveyance actions, not the ten-year period under the Real Property Limitations Act.

The court found its previous decision in Anisman (ONCA) was wrongly decided due to a lack of historical context.

The discoverability issue was ordered to be tried together with the fraudulent conveyance claim.

The appellant corporation appealed a partial summary judgment enforcing a mortgage against its property.

The appellant argued the mortgage was a 'fraudulent instrument' under the Land Titles Act because the individual who executed it had fraudulently assumed control of the corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the mortgage was not a forgery, the corporation was not a 'fictitious person', and the individual did not falsely hold herself out as the registered owner.

The doctrine of deferred indefeasibility did not invalidate the mortgage, and partial summary judgment was appropriate.

The appellant, Mario Oliveira, appealed two lower court decisions: the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action due to a breach of the deemed undertaking rule, and a finding of contempt for non-compliance with injunctive orders concerning a confidential union member list.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the wrongful dismissal action and the contempt finding.

However, it set aside the 89-day intermittent jail sentence for contempt, replacing it with a 14-day conditional sentence (house arrest), and reduced the contempt costs from $75,000 to $50,000.

Dag Hrvoic appealed a trial judgment that found equal shareholdings between him and Melissa Hrvoic in a co-founded company and ordered him to purchase Melissa's shares.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on the shareholding agreement, company valuation, the application of the "clean hands" doctrine, and the commencement of the limitation period for Melissa's claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions, including the existence of an agreement for equal shareholdings and the proper application of the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside a Superior Court declaration that a proposed payment by estate executors to a law firm, in satisfaction of a Dubai judgment, would violate s. 83.03(b) of the Criminal Code due to alleged connections between the judgment creditors and a terrorist group.

The appellate court held that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to issue such a declaration, as it improperly interfered with prosecutorial discretion and provided no binding immunity from criminal prosecution.

The court emphasized that Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 60(1) of the Trustee Act are procedural and do not create jurisdiction for declarations on criminal legality, especially when based on disputed facts.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal at an all-inclusive amount of $10,000, payable by the appellant from their share of the estate to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal heard two appeals: a dependant support appeal and a costs appeal.

The dependant support appeal concerned whether the deceased had a "settled intention" to treat a non-biological child as his own for the purpose of dependant support under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The application judge dismissed the dependant support claim, partly due to the mother's failure to disclose the child's true parentage.

The costs appeal challenged a substantial indemnity costs award against the mother and grandmother, which the application judge based on a finding of a "false narrative." The Court of Appeal dismissed the dependant support appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the deceased's knowledge of parentage was a relevant factor in determining "settled intention" given the short relationship.

However, the Court allowed the costs appeal, finding no basis for the "false narrative" conclusion or egregious conduct, and substituted the costs award with partial indemnity costs.

The appellant sought to overturn a security for costs order issued by a motion judge, arguing that two deposits related to a purchase agreement and an assignment should satisfy the security concerns.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's entitlement to these funds was vigorously challenged and formed part of the underlying litigation, thus providing no basis to deny the security for costs claim.

The court affirmed the motion judge's proper application of legal principles.

This appeal concerned an acrimonious estate dispute between two sisters regarding their deceased mother's modest estate.

The primary issue was an allegation that a joint tenancy in the matrimonial home had been severed by a testamentary disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in dismissing an adjournment motion, appointing one sister as the sole executrix, and ruling that the joint tenancy was not severed by a testamentary disposition alone.

The court emphasized the importance of expeditious and proportionate resolution of estate matters.