Lois B. Roberts

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the responding parties' appeal of a Superior Court order confirming an assessment officer's certificate.

The assessment officer had reduced the responding parties' legal accounts, resulting in a further payment of $25,546.14 required from the moving parties.

The Court of Appeal held that the appeal route for a solicitor and client costs assessment is determined by the amount of the single payment ordered by the Superior Court judge.

Because the single payment ordered was less than $50,000, the appeal lay to the Divisional Court.

The motion to quash was allowed and the appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellants commenced a professional negligence action against their former legal counsel in March 2023.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was statute-barred, as the appellants had threatened negligence proceedings in March 2019.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants knew or ought to have known of the material facts supporting their claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded restricted firearm, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application.

The police found the firearm during a search of the appellant under the Cannabis Control Act after observing open cannabis in an idling vehicle.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the section 8 analysis, concluding it was reasonable for police to seize the appellant's identifying information before conducting the physical search.

Although the Court found a section 10(b) breach based on recent jurisprudence, it conducted a fresh section 24(2) analysis and concluded the firearm should not be excluded.

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 appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant argued he had not authorized his former lawyers to settle the matter for $137,500.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that an agreement had been reached and that the dispute over the scope of the lawyers' authority was not a sufficient reason to set aside the settlement.

The court also dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.

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: Motion dismissed.

The applicant, having been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to over 8 years in custody, applied for judicial interim release pending his appeal.

The Crown opposed the application primarily on the public interest ground.

The motion judge found that the applicant's proposed ground of appeal regarding the jury instruction on self-defence and unlawful act assault clearly surpassed the not frivolous threshold.

Finding no public safety or flight risks, the motion judge concluded that the public interest in reviewability outweighed the public interest in enforceability, and granted bail pending appeal.

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: Motion dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in a motion 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: Motion dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for specific performance of a failed commercial real estate agreement of purchase and sale, the denial of his post-trial motion to amend his pleadings to claim damages, and the trial judge's finding that a 12% mortgage interest rate offended s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to grant specific performance, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the property was not unique and damages would be adequate.

The Court also upheld the refusal to allow a post-trial amendment to claim damages, noting the prejudice to the respondent.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the mortgage, holding that the 12% interest rate commenced prior to default and therefore did not violate s. 8 of the Interest Act.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and forcible confinement, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

He argued that his counsel failed to properly advise him on his right to a jury trial, his right not to testify, and his right to appear in person rather than virtually.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence and found that while the failure to advise on the jury election was not established, trial counsel failed to provide competent advice regarding the appellant's right to testify and his right to appear in person.

These failures deprived the appellant of the ability to make fundamental decisions about his defence, undermining trial fairness and resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial by judge and jury was ordered.

The applicant sought relief in a motion 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: Motion dismissed.

The moving parties sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their appeal for delay.

The underlying appeal concerned a permanent injunction requiring them to clean up their property in compliance with a municipal property standards by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was inadequately explained, the proposed appeal was frivolous and without merit, and the ongoing delay prejudiced the municipality and the public interest.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, transferred $400,000 to herself from her late stepfather's estate, claiming it was an inter vivos gift.

The respondent successfully challenged the transfer at first instance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the application judge erred by excluding the stepfather's investment advisor's notes as hearsay and by finding the gift was incomplete.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the exclusion of the notes as double hearsay under the Evidence Act and affirming the finding that the stepfather lacked a continuing intention to make the specific gift.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her application to remove a construction lien registered by the respondent for sewage backup remediation work.

Prior to the hearing, the Court of Appeal raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction over the appeal or if it should have been brought to the Divisional Court under s. 71(1) of the Construction Act.

The parties agreed that the Divisional Court had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that decisions made in reliance on the Construction Act, including orders discharging or refusing to discharge a lien, must be appealed to the Divisional Court.

The appeal was transferred accordingly.

The moving parties sought a panel review of a motion judge's order requiring them to pay $19,365.37 in costs for their abandoned appeal.

They argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment to cross-examine the respondent's affiant and by fixing an unreasonable amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no error in principle or unreasonable result in the motion judge's discretionary decisions regarding cross-examination and costs.

The appellants, private practice oral surgeons, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review of a hospital board's decision to cancel their operating room access and hospital privileges.

The board made the decision without a hearing, relying on s. 44 of the Public Hospitals Act, which allows a hospital to revoke privileges when ceasing to provide a service.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the board's interpretation of s. 44 was reasonable, that the termination of the specific operating room access constituted ceasing a 'service', and that the board was not required to hold a hearing or consider the appellants' affidavits.

The appellants sought a stay pending appeal from an order striking their statement of defence for non-compliance with documentary disclosure obligations and a prior peremptory order.

The motion judge held the proposed appeal was weak, found no irreparable harm, and concluded the balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured refusal of a stay.