Marc Rosenberg

The Ontario Review Board appealed a costs order made against it by an application judge following a successful application by the respondent to quash an adjournment order made by the ORB.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the costs order, finding that the application judge applied the wrong test.

The Court held that the test for awarding costs against the ORB should be at least as stringent as the test for awarding costs against the Crown in criminal matters, requiring a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards, which was not met in this case.

Following a successful appeal, the respondents requested to make submissions on the costs of the lower court proceeding, arguing the motion judge made no costs award due to the novelty of the issues.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its decision to award the appellants costs of both the appeal and the lower court motion, applying the general principle that costs follow the event and noting that the appellants were entirely successful in being permitted to continue their actions against new defendants.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's dismissal of his motion to vary spousal support, terminate daycare expenses, and reapportion section 7 child support expenses.

The appellant argued that the respondent mother's transition from a student to full-time employment constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the mother's employment was foreseeable and necessary given the father's continuous failure to meet his support obligations.

The court also upheld the motion judge's temporary apportionment of section 7 expenses based on the parties' 2006 tax returns, noting the father's failure to make full and frank financial disclosure.

The plaintiff and the deceased cohabited for 23 months before the deceased's sudden death.

The deceased had promised to transfer his RRSPs to the plaintiff if they were still living together, but died before changing his will or signing a cohabitation agreement.

The trial judge awarded the plaintiff $1,750,000 based on a constructive trust arising from unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the estate's appeal, finding no unjust enrichment because the benefits the plaintiff received outweighed her contributions.

The court also held that a constructive trust was inappropriate as monetary damages would have sufficed and there was no link between her contributions and the RRSPs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision, arguing that there were material facts in dispute and a trial of the issue should have been directed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had previously taken the position that no material facts were in dispute and could not now seek a trial of an issue.

The court further held that, in any event, there were juristic reasons for the deprivation in the context of the insolvency proceedings.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for trespass to land and chattels, and aggravated damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the $35,000 award for trespass to chattels and the $5,000 award for trespass to land, finding sufficient evidence of actual damage.

However, the court set aside the $10,000 aggravated damages award to the individual plaintiff, as the trespass was committed against the corporate plaintiff.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing total damages to $40,000.

The appellant appealed an order fixing the trustee's remuneration and declining to appoint a substitute trustee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that s. 39(5) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act provided the motion judge with the authority to fix the remuneration.

The court also agreed that there was no basis to appoint a substitute trustee, as the appellant was permitted and capable of carrying a claim against the bankrupt.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision which found that the respondent did not convey an RRSP with fraudulent intent under section 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no error in apprehending the evidence or arriving at her conclusion based on findings of fact.

Costs of $6,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to plead damages directly resulting from the respondent's actions and did not suffer any damages as a consequence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal, alleging procedural inadequacies at trial.

The Court of Appeal refused the application, finding no basis on the record to conclude that any procedural inadequacies occasioned a miscarriage of justice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge upholding her conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the lower court judge thoroughly reviewed all arguments and provided compelling reasons.

Concluding that no issue of general importance was raised and the proposed issues lacked sufficient merit, the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to properly apply the principles in R. v. W.D. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons did not reveal any such failure and were based on a review of the entirety of the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for uttering threats.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding a threat was made and that the conviction was inconsistent with an acquittal on a related charge from the previous day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the accepted evidence and that there was no contradiction between the verdicts because the evidence for the two days differed.

The appellant, appearing in person, sought an adjournment of his appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition pending the outcome of his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on a related matter concerning the Board's Charter jurisdiction.

The respondents opposed the adjournment.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment, noting that the appellant's status would not change and there would be no detriment to the public interest, while a Supreme Court decision could affect further proceedings.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his application for a stay of proceedings due to a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of delay, complexity, and prejudice.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed based on fresh evidence, and the conditional sentence was reduced to 15 months with varied terms.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, challenging the trial judge's exemption of the respondent from provincial sex offender registry requirements, the refusal to order forfeiture of a computer, and the failure to make mandatory DNA and SOIRA orders.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to exempt the respondent from the provincial legislation and erred in failing to make the requested DNA and SOIRA orders, as the respondent did not establish that the impact would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision not to order forfeiture of the computer.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants were committed for trial on fraud-related charges and appealed the dismissal of their motion to quash the committals.

The appellant Suissa argued that the preliminary inquiry judge's reasons were inadequate and constituted jurisdictional error.

The Court of Appeal held that inadequate reasons for committal are not per se a jurisdictional error and that the application judge properly reviewed the record to find a basis for committal.

The appellant Tehrani argued there was insufficient evidence for committal, but the Court found a sufficient evidentiary basis existed.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to apply the Vetrovec principles to a witness's evidence and erred in presuming she had knowledge of materials from various civil suits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was alive to the witness's evidence and was not required to expressly refer to Vetrovec.

Furthermore, any error regarding the civil suits caused no prejudice as they were a minor aspect of the case and the appellant had the opportunity to provide an explanation.

The applicant applied for bail pending his appeal from a conviction for second degree murder.

He argued that the trial judge erred in failing to disclose the identity of a confidential police informer and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The court reviewed the grounds of appeal and found them to be arguable but weak.

Applying the public interest test, the court concluded that the interest in enforceability of the murder conviction outweighed the interest in reviewability.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $18,939.18 from the media coalition regarding its motion to intervene on the appeal.

The media coalition had been granted leave to intervene on conditions, including paying costs incurred due to late intervention, but subsequently elected not to participate in the appeal to avoid costs exposure.

The Court of Appeal held that because the intervener did not participate, there was no relevant costs order on the appeal to trigger the payment of full motion costs.

However, the court awarded the respondents $3,500 for costs fairly attributable to the late intervention.