Marc Rosenberg

The appellants appealed a judgment, arguing that minutes of settlement foreclosed the complaints that were before Tarion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that the minutes of settlement did not foreclose the complaints.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding an acknowledged debt.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $7,500.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and his sentence as a dangerous offender.

He argued the trial judge erred by refusing to sever the counts relating to one complainant from those relating to two others, and by not designating him a long-term offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the pending similar fact application when denying severance and correctly applied the test for dangerous offender designation, noting the appellant's lack of insight and unsuitability for anti-androgen medication.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of a charge against the respondent for failing to comply with an order under the Building Code Act.

The lower courts had dismissed the charge on the basis that it was laid outside the one-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the subject matter of the proceeding was the failure to comply with the order, which occurred within the limitation period.

The court clarified that the existence of other remedies under the Act does not preclude prosecution.

The dismissal was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge erred in granting only 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample reasons in the record to justify the credit ratio, including the appellant's extensive record for violent crimes and history of violating release conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, which occurred while he was an inmate at a jail.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant by rejecting his testimony and the exculpatory evidence of a correctional officer, while accepting the evidence of another officer.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made several errors in assessing credibility, including misapprehending the record regarding the officer's use of notes, improperly using the appellant's failure to plead guilty to a separate charge, and misapplying expert testimony regarding the value of drugs in jail.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his sentence of just over 5 years imprisonment for a brutal, planned beating of a victim who had spoken to the police.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in applying amendments to s. 719 of the Criminal Code, as the offence was committed before the amendments came into force.

However, applying the principles in R. v. Rezaie, the Court concluded the sentence was fit given the severity of the offence and the appellant's record of violence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to decide if the conduct amounted to theft by conversion.

The Court held that making use of funds while being wilfully blind to their source constitutes dishonesty, satisfying the elements of fraud.

The appellant employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act after an employee was injured by a reversing truck unit that did not have an attached trailer.

The trial judge acquitted the employer, finding the truck was not 'material handling equipment' under s. 56 of the Industrial Establishments Regulation.

The summary conviction appeal court overturned the acquittal.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the acquittal, holding that s. 56 applies only to vehicles that constitute material handling equipment, and not to road vehicles that are not actually or typically used to handle materials.

The United Mexican States appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing its application to set aside a portion of a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration award in favour of Cargill, Incorporated.

The arbitral tribunal had awarded Cargill damages for both its Mexican subsidiary's lost sales and its own lost sales of high fructose corn syrup to the subsidiary ('up-stream losses') resulting from Mexico's trade barriers.

Mexico argued the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award up-stream losses.

The Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for true questions of jurisdiction under Article 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Model Law is correctness.

However, the Court found that the tribunal correctly identified its jurisdictional limits and that the determination of whether the up-stream losses arose out of Mexico's breaches was a matter for the tribunal's expertise, not a jurisdictional issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed her convictions for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and heroin, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing her motion to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The contraband was found during a warrantless search of her knapsack after police responded to a 911 call about a hostage situation.

The Court of Appeal found that the search violated the appellant's s. 8 Charter rights, as it was not justified by exigent circumstances or the Waterfield doctrine.

However, applying the Grant framework, the Court concluded the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith in a chaotic situation and the law regarding police powers in such circumstances was uncertain.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for mischief over $5,000 relating to property damage where his plumbing company had worked.

He argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons regarding his alibi defence, misapplied the W.(D.) test, and improperly relied on photo line-up evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately explained her credibility findings, properly directed her mind to whether the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt, and placed little to no weight on the photo line-up.

The appellant, charged with marijuana possession, production, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, appealed two Superior Court decisions dismissing his applications to prohibit prosecution.

He argued that the relevant provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act had been invalidated by various courts and were offences unknown to law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, noting that it had previously confirmed the provisions remain in full force and effect.

The appellant appealed his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing the trial judge erred in a Corbett application by allowing cross-examination on his entire criminal record, including the underlying facts of prior assault convictions.

The trial judge also instructed the jury that they could use the prior convictions to determine who was the aggressor.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in both the Corbett ruling and the jury instructions, as prior convictions under s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act go only to credibility unless they meet the similar fact evidence test.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, appealed his conviction for fraud.

At trial, he called the investigating officer as his own witness and elicited prejudicial opinion and investigative hearsay evidence.

The trial judge failed to give a limiting instruction on the use of this evidence and instead invited the jury to use it to support the Crown's case.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was admissible only for a limited purpose and required a clear limiting instruction.

The curative proviso could not be applied, as the evidence provided a clear route to conviction.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and firearms offences following a trial by judge alone.

The main issue was identity, relying heavily on the victim's testimony.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to give himself a Vetrovec warning regarding the victim's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no requirement for a judge sitting alone to recite a Vetrovec caution in their reasons, and the trial judge was acutely aware of the dangers of relying on the victim's evidence.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and firearms offences and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge overemphasized community impact, took improper judicial notice, and imposed a harsh sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's consideration of the premeditated nature of the offence, the use of a prohibited handgun, and the appellant's prior record.

The appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking cocaine and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

He appealed his convictions, arguing his guilty pleas were invalid because he was experiencing hypoglycaemia from Type 1 diabetes at the time.

He also appealed his sentence, arguing it offended the principle of parity compared to his co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no evidence he was unwell and noting his active participation in the plea proceedings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant was higher in the chain of command, on parole at the time, and the sentence was based on a joint submission.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 22-year relationship.

The trial judge imputed minimum wage income to the respondent, who had taken voluntary early retirement, and declined to order lump sum spousal support.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on imputed income and lump sum support, finding no error in principle.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to eliminate the appellant's obligation to pay retroactive child support, to order ongoing periodic spousal support, and to set aside the trial costs award.

The appellant appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and firearms offences, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on post-offence conduct, the mental elements for murder and manslaughter, and failed to accurately summarize defence evidence or leave the defence of accident.

The central issue at trial was whether the appellant or his neighbour fired the fatal shots.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions.

The court held that the post-offence conduct evidence did not require a special warning, the summary of evidence was fair, and there was no air of reality to the defence of accident.