Marc Rosenberg

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for causing unnecessary suffering to a dog by choking it.

He argued that he was merely defending himself from unnecessary force.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was an evidentiary basis for the trial judge to reject the self-defence claim and conclude the appellant caused unnecessary suffering.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred by rejecting a joint submission on sentence without explicitly giving counsel an opportunity to address it.

The Court of Appeal found that counsel had an opportunity during a break in proceedings.

The Court upheld the trial judge's decision, agreeing that the joint submission was grossly inadequate and that this was one of the rare cases where it was necessary to depart from it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his sentence of seven years for ten armed robberies and two unlawful confinements.

He argued that an arithmetic error was made in calculating his pre-trial custody and that he should receive credit for time spent in custody on a separate drug conviction that was subsequently quashed and stayed.

The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed to correct the arithmetic error, reducing the sentence by 70 days.

However, the majority held that the appellant could not receive credit for time spent serving a sentence for an unrelated offence, even though that conviction was later quashed.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old long-term employee, was summarily dismissed and arrested for theft after being confused with another employee by a private investigation firm retained by his employer.

The plaintiff sued the employer, its parent company, the investigation firm, and the police for various torts including negligent investigation and intentional infliction of mental distress.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing several claims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reinstated the negligent investigation claim against the private investigation firm, recognizing that private investigators may owe a duty of care to suspects.

The court also reinstated the intentional infliction of mental distress claims against the investigation firm, the parent company, and the human resources manager.

The dismissal of the claims for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations was upheld.

The young person appealed their conviction, arguing that their s. 11(b) Charter rights were infringed due to two periods of delay: time taken by the original trial judge to render a decision, and a two-month delay due to the judge's illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the time taken to craft reasons was reasonable and part of the inherent time requirements of the case.

The court also held it was not unreasonable to wait two months to see if the ill judge could resume duties before rescheduling, and noted the appellant suffered no special prejudice as they were in custody on other serious charges.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for a series of sexual assaults and extortion against his son's 17-year-old girlfriend.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional sentence manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences, which included videotaping an attempted sexual assault and using the tape to extort further compliance.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to 15 months' imprisonment, taking into account pre-trial custody and time served on the conditional sentence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for robbery, arguing the defence of colour of right applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the defence did not arise on the facts, as the appellant demanded the money, pointed an imitation firearm, and never asserted a right to the money.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for smuggling heroin into a correctional facility.

The sole issue on the conviction appeal was the alleged lack of proof of continuity of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that continuity was established by direct and circumstantial evidence, and refused leave to appeal the sentence, holding that it was fit for the serious offence.

The appellants were injured in a bus collision in 2000 and commenced an action against several defendants in 2001.

In 2006, after the expiry of the former two-year limitation period under the Highway Traffic Act, they sought to add a doctor as a party defendant.

The Court of Appeal held that the transition provision in s. 24(3) of the Limitations Act, 2002 applied, which barred the proceeding.

While the court confirmed that the common-law doctrine of special circumstances remains available to extend a former limitation period under the transition provisions, it upheld the motion judge's finding that no special circumstances existed because the appellants had made a deliberate decision not to sue the doctor before the limitation period expired.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for breach of a film financing contract.

The appellants argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, failed to hear oral argument before releasing his decision, and sought to introduce fresh evidence that the trial judge repeatedly fell asleep during the trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons sufficient and that the lack of oral argument did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

While the fresh evidence regarding the sleeping judge was admitted, the court held the appellants could not rely on it because they made a deliberate tactical decision not to raise the issue during the trial.

The appellant hired the 13-year-old respondent to perform chores at his cottage.

The respondent negligently started a fire while trying to refuel a lawn mower, causing $285,000 in damage.

The appellant's insurer brought a subrogated claim against the respondent in tort and contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an employee is generally not liable to indemnify an employer for ordinary negligence.

Applying the Anns test, the court found that while the harm was foreseeable, the parties' relationship lacked sufficient proximity to make liability just and fair, and residual policy considerations weighed against imposing a duty of care.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences, as well as a S.O.I.R.A. order.

He argued the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, and a tape-recorded conversation was inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the tape was admissible and the appellant's responses were inculpatory, except for one count where the Crown conceded there was no evidence.

The appeal from sentence and the S.O.I.R.A. order were also dismissed.

The appellant, manager of an income trust, appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of the trust's declaration of trust.

The dispute centered on the method and date for calculating the 'Net Realized Proceeds per Unit' for units redeemed by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the valuation date was the correct date for determining the redemption price under both calculation methods provided in the declaration of trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was charged with theft after management viewed a videotape and contacted police.

She was acquitted and subsequently sued the arresting officer and the restaurant owner for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and defamation.

A jury found against her on all issues.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft, failed to outline her position, and improperly allowed the defendants to expand the theft allegation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict and concluding the jury was properly instructed.

The appellant, a former Tim Horton's employee, was acquitted of criminal theft charges and subsequently sued her employer and the arresting officer for malicious prosecution, wrongful dismissal, and other claims.

A jury dismissed all her claims.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the definition of theft and failed to properly outline her position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the jury was entitled to reach its factual conclusions based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing the trial judge's finding of joint enterprise was unreasonable and based on a misapprehension of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence from independent witnesses that the appellant and the deceased were racing, and concluding the trial judge did not misapprehend the evidence.

The plaintiff's estate brought a civil action against a nurse and a hospital for damages arising from alleged sexual assaults.

The nurse had previously been acquitted of criminal charges related to the same allegations, with the criminal trial judge expressing a belief in the nurse's factual innocence.

The hospital successfully moved to dismiss the civil action as an abuse of process, arguing it was an impermissible relitigation of the criminal court's findings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a criminal acquittal, even one accompanied by strong reasons asserting innocence, does not constitute a formal declaration of factual innocence that bars a subsequent civil action with a lower burden of proof.

The insurer appealed a trial judgment finding that the insured suffered a 'loss of use' of his foot, entitling him to coverage under an accident insurance policy.

The insurer argued that the trial judge should have applied the American Medical Association Guidelines to interpret 'loss of use'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly interpreted the term in the context of the insurance contract rather than the Guidelines, which were not referenced in the policy.

The Court found no error in the conclusion that the insured lost total functional or practical use of his foot.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action for damages arising from a severe neural tube defect allegedly caused by exposure to TCE.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's rejection of the appellants' expert theory of causation, finding no palpable and overriding error.

The court confirmed that the exceptional material contribution test for causation from Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke did not apply, as the evidence established no association between TCE and the defect.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant brought a motion to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal requiring him to post security for costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motion judge's decision.

The court noted that the appellant's impecuniosity did not preclude the order, as the conditions in Rule 61.06 were met and the history of the litigation supported the finding that the appeal appeared frivolous and vexatious.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.