L. Sossin

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal for want of jurisdiction, while the appellant brought a motion to disqualify counsel and compel document production.

The appellant sought to appeal a motion judge's order declining to schedule a motion to stay execution of a judgment from an underlying fee dispute.

The Court of Appeal held that the order declining to schedule the stay motion was interlocutory, meaning jurisdiction for the appeal lies with the Divisional Court.

The appeal was quashed, and the appellant's motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The appellants argued that the agreement never became binding because the respondent accepted an extension offer one day late.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellants elected to treat the contract as ongoing by subsequently waiving conditions, paying a second deposit, and engaging in conduct consistent with a binding agreement.

The expectation damages award of $142,757.89 was upheld.

The appellant was found not criminally responsible for several offences committed during an acute episode of delirium.

The Ontario Review Board subsequently issued a detention order, finding he posed a significant threat to public safety.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the Board's decision unreasonable, as it failed to identify evidence meeting the high threshold for a significant threat and failed in its inquisitorial duty to probe the equivocal evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the detention order was set aside, and an absolute discharge was granted.

The appellant appealed his robbery convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his application to adduce unknown third-party suspect evidence regarding a subsequent attempted carjacking.

The Court of Appeal found that even if the trial judge erred by referring to certain witness testimony, her core reasoning applying the Grant framework was sound.

The trial judge correctly concluded the two incidents were not sufficiently similar to suggest the same individuals committed both offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant and respondent, adult siblings, were named co-estate trustees of their father's estate.

Disagreements arose over the payment of estate debts, leading to a breakdown in the administration of the estate.

The application judge removed the appellant as estate trustee, finding she had obstructed the estate's administration and preferred her own interests, while dismissing the application to remove the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's discretionary decision and concluding that the appellant's arguments regarding the law of abatement were an ex post facto rationalization for her conduct.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for various offences, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that maintained his conditional discharge with reduced reporting requirements.

He argued that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and should be granted an absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board reasonably relied on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant required a longer transition period in independent living to ensure medication compliance and mental stability.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his sentence of two years less a day for break and enter and careless storage of firearms, seeking the substitution of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was not manifestly unfit and rejected claims of reasonable apprehension of bias.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the sentence by 41 days to account for pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant, an investment advisor, received a recruitment bonus structured as a loan to be forgiven annually if revenue targets were met.

After the employer failed to credit bonuses for two years, the parties signed an Amended Note extending the repayment period and acknowledging the unpaid bonuses.

Following his termination, the respondent sued to enforce the Amended Note.

The appellant argued the Amended Note lacked fresh consideration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Amended Note was supported by valid consideration, including clarification of the parties' relationship, tax deferral benefits, and an extended interest-free period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day for drug trafficking and related offences.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's conduct of his defence as an aggravating factor and by failing to consider collateral immigration consequences.

Admitting fresh evidence of the appellant's acceptance into a residential treatment program and considering his severe PTSD from being a child soldier in Sierra Leone, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted a conditional sentence of two years less a day.