Lois B. Roberts

The appellant appealed a finding of contempt for failing to comply with a consent order requiring the parties to enroll their children in counselling to facilitate effective co-parenting.

The motion judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant wilfully obstructed the counselling process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or interpretation of the order.

The appellant, a truck driver, appealed the dismissal of his action following a successful summary judgment motion by the respondents.

He alleged he suffered injuries after falling on uneven ground at the respondents' premises.

The motion judge found no genuine issue requiring a trial, accepting unchallenged evidence that the premises were regularly inspected and no hazards were found.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not reverse the onus and was entitled to reject the appellant's expert opinion, which was based on information inconsistent with the appellant's discovery evidence.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on driving-related charges, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a secure forensic psychiatric unit.

He argued the Board erred in finding he posed a significant threat to public safety and in failing to hold a hearing regarding a temporary increase in restrictions on his liberty following an elopement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's conclusion on public safety risk was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court declined to decide the restriction of liberty issue as it was moot, and refused to impose a general notice and hearing procedure on the Board.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention and a decision that a temporary hold on his indirectly supervised community passes did not constitute a significant restriction of liberty requiring a mandatory hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably concluded the appellant's continued detention was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition given his recent decompensation.

The Court also upheld the Board's application of the Campbell framework, agreeing that the temporary restriction on privileges was a day-to-day clinical management decision that did not meet the threshold of a significant increase in liberty restrictions.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sought interim judicial release pending her appeal, citing concerns about contracting COVID-19 in custody.

The court assessed the application under the public interest criterion of s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the grounds of appeal were not strong, the offence was exceptionally serious, the release plan was inadequate, and the COVID-19 risk in her institution was low, the court concluded that the applicant's detention remained necessary in the public interest.

The application for release was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and assault against his former spouse, as well as his four-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in admitting discreditable conduct evidence, dismissing his application to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity, and correcting his counsel's closing address which invoked prohibited twin myths reasoning.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal and an application to introduce fresh evidence, holding that the proposed social media evidence did not meet the Palmer test for admissibility and the four-year penitentiary sentence was fit for serious domestic sexual assaults.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order requiring him to pay his former common-law spouse $75,000 for unjust enrichment and $561 in indefinite monthly spousal support.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding unjust enrichment and in awarding indefinite rather than transitional support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the test for unjust enrichment or her assessment of the respondent's contributions to the property.

The court also upheld the indefinite spousal support award as reasonable given the respondent's age, income potential, and the 17-year duration of the relationship.

The appellant appealed a judgment finding him liable for civil conspiracy to cause economic injury and an award of substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent had lost his investment after being misled into transferring funds to a shell company, which were then diverted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge applied the correct legal test for conspiracy to injure and made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings.

The court also upheld the substantial indemnity costs award, noting it was justified by the appellant's egregious and fraudulent behaviour in furthering the conspiracy.

The appellant fell off his bicycle and sued the municipality for damages more than four years later.

The municipality successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired.

On appeal, the appellant argued that he did not discover the full extent of his injuries until years later and that he lacked the capacity to commence litigation due to a disability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that knowledge of the material facts, not the extent of damages, triggers the limitation period, and that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of capacity under section 7 of the Limitations Act.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari to quash a committal order for charges of intimidating a justice system participant and criminal harassment.

The Crown requested summary determination under s. 685(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal found the appeal to be frivolous and completely devoid of merit, rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding a lack of evidence for the 'without lawful authority' element and allegations of judicial bias.

The appeal was summarily dismissed.

The moving party sought to quash an appeal brought by the responding party from a motion judge's dismissal of a request to reconsider a costs order.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's order refusing to reconsider the costs disposition was interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of any substantive right.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the moving party.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for three counts of assault, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board detaining him at a forensic hospital.

He sought an absolute discharge, arguing he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's longstanding, treatment-resistant schizophrenia, lack of insight, and severe substance abuse issues—which predictably lead to decompensation and aggressive behaviour—supported the Board's conclusion that he remained a significant threat to the public.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possessing and attempting to distribute child pornography, and obstructing police.

He argued the trial judge erred by relying on discreditable conduct evidence and by making personal observations of his hand movements to determine his physical ability to operate a cell phone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the discreditable conduct evidence was properly admitted to prove identity, and noting the appellant had expressly invited the trial judge to observe his hands during testimony.

The appellants were convicted of unlawful act manslaughter for failing to provide the necessaries of life to their 27-month-old daughter, who died of what trial experts concluded was a combination of asthma and malnutrition.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh expert evidence from a forensic pathologist and a pediatric bone disorder expert, challenging the trial evidence on the cause of death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, noting it was highly cogent and undermined the Crown's theory of liability at trial.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his three-year global sentence for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and breach of probation.

The appellant had sent hundreds of threatening messages of a sexually violent nature to his former domestic partner over two years, despite police warnings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was within the range for like offences and reflected the serious and aggravating features of the crimes.

The appellant appealed his sentence, specifically challenging a condition in a s. 161 prohibition order that prohibited contact with the adult complainant's parents.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the parents did not fall within the definition of a victim under s. 161(1)(a.1) of the Criminal Code.

The prohibition order was amended to remove the parents, while all other aspects of the sentence remained unchanged.

The appellant appealed his convictions for break and enter, assault, and uttering threats, as well as his sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in relying on eyewitness recognition evidence and in denying enhanced credit for strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's identification conclusion was supported by the totality of the evidence, including threatening Facebook messages.

The sentence appeal was dismissed regarding bail credit, but allowed on consent to grant the appellant one year from release to pay an $810.93 restitution order.

The moving party sought leave to file an appellate factum exceeding the 30-page limit, proposing a draft factum of approximately 125 pages.

The moving party argued that the issues were complex, the trial was long, and it needed to rely on proposed fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension.

The court emphasized the importance of conciseness and efficiency in appellate advocacy, noting that the moving party's choice to raise numerous grounds of appeal did not warrant an extended factum.

The appellant pled guilty to attempted break and enter and was sentenced to a short custodial term, probation, and a lifetime weapons prohibition under s. 109(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He appealed the weapons prohibition, arguing it prevented him from hunting for food.

The Crown conceded the appeal, agreeing that the offence involved intoxicated confusion with no intent to commit theft and no weapons or violence, making the prohibition discretionary rather than mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the weapons prohibition order on consent.

The appellant appealed her 8.5-year custodial sentence and a $185,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture following convictions for human trafficking and related sex trade offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit given the serious aggravating circumstances and the paramountcy of denunciation and deterrence.

The court also upheld the fine, concluding it was amply supported by evidence of the profits the appellant derived from her crimes.