Lois B. Roberts

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed J.E.'s appeal from his designation as a dangerous offender and the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

The court found no reversible error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of the evidence, including expert psychiatric testimony regarding the appellant’s risk and treatability.

The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that J.E. posed a high risk of recidivism and that available controls and treatments would not adequately manage his risk to the public.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Lorne Rappaport’s appeal from convictions for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation.

The appellant, a hockey coach, was found to have engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant, who was 15 at the time.

The appeal alleged misapprehension of evidence and improper application of legal principles regarding credibility.

The Court found no material misapprehension and held that the trial judge’s credibility findings and application of the law were reasonable and thorough.

The appellant, Sami Kazi, appealed the October 24, 2024 disposition of the Ontario Review Board, which found him Not Criminally Responsible and ordered his detention with conditions.

After a subsequent Board hearing in January 2025 resulted in a new disposition, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot, as the original disposition was no longer operative.

The court found no live controversy remained and declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal, noting the issues were fact-specific and overtaken by events.

The appellant, S.M., appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding the complainant’s credibility and motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence or in her reasons, holding that the findings were open to her on the record and that the reasons were sufficient for appellate review.

The appeal was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of Susan Henderson’s motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment dismissing her will challenge application.

The court considered written submissions on costs, ultimately awarding partial indemnity costs of $3,630.69 to the responding party, Wei Wang, rejecting arguments of financial hardship, public interest, and self-representation as reasons to deny costs.

The appellant, Jomal Brown, appealed his convictions for possession of various illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of trafficking, and several firearm offences.

The appeal also challenged the application judge’s dismissal of his Charter application, which was denied on the basis that Brown had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit where the items were seized.

During appeal preparation, Crown counsel identified a trial fairness issue: the Crown had taken inconsistent positions regarding Brown’s residence in the unit at different stages of the proceedings.

With the consent of both parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and Charter ruling, and ordered a new trial on all issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by the moving party, M.H., to adjourn and stay the appeal of O.K. until O.K. paid support arrears and security for costs.

The court found that O.K. was required to pay support for January to March 2025 and had not done so, and that he had no assets in Ontario and a history of failing to meet support obligations.

The court ordered the appeal stayed until O.K. paid $24,396 in support arrears and $35,000 as security for costs, with the appeal to be administratively dismissed if payment was not made by June 6, 2025.

The court also awarded M.H. $3,200 in costs for the motion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed motions by tenants Michael Schram and Leslie Mitchell for an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal regarding the termination of their tenancy and the dismissal of their action.

The court found that the proposed appeals lacked merit and that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The court also dismissed the request for a stay of eviction and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The moving party, Susan Henderson, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment dismissing her application to challenge the validity of her late mother’s 2018 Will.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and noting a pattern of delay and unreasonable conduct by the moving party.

The court emphasized the need for finality in estate matters and awarded costs to the responding party.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave for the former trial solicitor of Michael Scott De Longte to intervene in the appeal, limited to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found the solicitor’s participation necessary to complete the record and assist in the proper adjudication of the issue, as the allegations of ineffective assistance were central to the appeal and mirrored in a related professional negligence action.

The court also declared that solicitor-client privilege had been waived by Mr. De Longte and set out a schedule for the exchange and filing of fresh evidence, cross-examinations, and facta.

No costs were awarded on the motion.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Rajinder Singh Rathee to amend a previous appellate decision regarding the quantum of lump sum spousal support.

The court held that the alleged error was not a clerical or accidental slip within the meaning of Rule 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, but rather a substantive disagreement with the court’s reasoning.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to Noelle Heen-Lune Rathee.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect their appeals from orders compelling the sale of a condominium and imposing a non-harassment order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding the delay unsatisfactorily explained, the appeal lacking merit, and ongoing prejudice to the responding parties.

The court awarded costs to the responding parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of A.A. regarding the return of her child to Bangladesh under the Children’s Law Reform Act (CLRA) while refugee applications were pending.

The court found that the motion judge erred by failing to consider the impact of the outstanding refugee claims, the allegations of domestic violence, and the potential for serious harm to the child if returned.

The decision clarifies that the existence of a refugee claim does not automatically stay CLRA proceedings but is a significant factor in the analysis.

The matter was remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant, Marnie Affleck, appealed the dismissal of her claim for negligent infliction of nervous shock and defamation against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Sunrise of Erin Mills, and several individuals.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings, agreeing that the respondents’ actions were reasonable and that the defamation claim was not pleaded with sufficient specificity.

The court also found no error in the trial judge’s factual findings or costs award, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellants, Dorinda Nana Afriyie and Adusei Kwame, appealed the dismissal of their motion to set aside a default judgment and writ of possession in a mortgage action brought by Rume Ezomo.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s application of the criteria for setting aside a default judgment, as set out in Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen.

The court held that the motion judge properly considered the relevant factors, including promptness, explanation for default, arguable defence, prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Michelle Botosh’s appeal from the order striking out her 2023 action against members of the defence team from her earlier personal injury litigation.

The court found the new action was a collateral attack on the 2013 judgment and an abuse of process.

The court also upheld the motion judge’s findings regarding witness and lawyer immunity, the absence of a privacy claim, and the reasonableness of the costs award.

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its administrative decision to void the registrations of 20 licensing candidates implicated in a cheating scandal.

The Divisional Court had found the LSO breached procedural fairness by not holding oral hearings before voiding the registrations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court misapplied the Baker factors and conflated the LSO's administrative licensing functions with its disciplinary good character functions.

The Court held that the written process provided by the LSO, which included disclosure and multiple opportunities to respond, satisfied the duty of procedural fairness.

The Court also admitted new evidence and found the Divisional Court breached procedural fairness by making costs orders without allowing submissions.

The appellant, Gaurav Tewari, appealed the decision of the motion judge who permanently stayed his action as a duplicative pleading and an abuse of process.

The motion judge also struck the claim under rules 21.01(3)(c), 21.01(3)(d), and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it contained no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Leave to amend was refused.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant, Shiu Yiu Kong, appealed the dismissal of his application for an oppression remedy under the OBCA and CBCA.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s consideration of the statutory provisions, legal principles, or factual findings.

The court held that the appellant’s criticisms of the companies’ books and records did not amount to oppressive conduct, especially as the supporting evidence was inadmissible opinion evidence.

The real dispute was over the price and method of share purchase, which did not warrant court intervention.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant, Milad Babadi, appealed his convictions for uttering threats and criminal harassment, as well as the sentence imposed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were not informed or voluntary.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel’s representation was competent, that the appellant’s mental health issues were properly considered, and that the pleas were voluntary.

The court also denied a request for a sealing order and publication ban on medical information, emphasizing the open court principle.