Marc Rosenberg

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for certiorari regarding his committal for trial on charges of criminal negligence causing death.

The charges arose from a tractor-trailer collision that resulted in three fatalities.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence of wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others to justify the committal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was some evidence, including the appellant's knowledge of the trailer's poor condition and tendency to lean, to meet the low threshold for committal.

The appellant appealed his convictions and total sentence of six years' imprisonment for the physical and sexual abuse of his children.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the sexual abuse allegations, improperly assessed videotaped statements, and rendered an unreasonable verdict on the assault charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and her assessment of the videotaped statements was appropriate.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in refusing credit for time spent on strict bail conditions, though a technical correction was made to the counts on which the sentence was imposed.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from a conviction for careless driving.

On consent, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and remitted the careless driving appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court to be heard with the 'no clear view' appeal.

The appellant appealed his 16-month sentence for assaulting his spouse, arguing the sentencing judge mischaracterized the offence and imposed a sentence outside the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judge's characterization of the prolonged, brutal assault, which included violent entry into the home, assault in front of a child, and firing an arrow as the victim fled.

The sentence was deemed fit, particularly given it was the appellant's second conviction for spousal assault.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to give credit for pre-trial custody that resulted from other charges in Ottawa and Pembroke.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's decision was not unreasonable.

The court noted that the sentence remained well within the appropriate range given the appellant's criminal record, even though not all pre-trial custody was used up in the subsequent disposition of the Ottawa charges.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his effective eight-year sentence for firearms offences, arguing it failed to reflect his guilty plea and rehabilitative potential, and represented too large an increase from his previous sentences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the extreme seriousness of attending a meeting to purchase firearms while armed with a loaded handgun containing hollow-point bullets.

The court noted the appellant was subject to three firearms prohibitions at the time and had a significant related criminal record, concluding the sentence was fit and no error in principle occurred.

The appellant, who had a substantial criminal record including a previous ten-year sentence for bank robberies, appealed his effective sentence of thirteen years imprisonment for seven bank robberies and one attempted bank robbery.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit, noting the gravity of the offences and the expert evidence indicating a risk of re-offending.

The court held that the sentence did not offend the principles of proportionality and totality, and dismissed the appeal.

Following a successful appeal by the City of Toronto on a single issue, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

Because several issues from the original application remained undetermined and were remitted to the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal set aside the application judge's costs order and reserved the costs of both the original application and the appeal to the judge determining the remitted issues.

The appellant, an African-American man who fled to Canada in 1969 after being charged with the attempted murder of a Chicago police officer, appealed his committal for extradition and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

He argued that the extradition judge failed to properly assess the reliability of inconsistent witness statements and that his surrender would be unjust and oppressive due to systemic racism in the Chicago justice system.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, finding that the evidence met the threshold for reliability and sufficiency, and that the Minister reasonably concluded the appellant would not face persecution or be denied a fair trial if returned to the United States.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from repeated sexual touching and two specific incidents involving a child complainant who was a friend of the appellant's daughter.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of the verdicts, alleging physical impossibility, logical inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, and improper treatment of defence expert evidence concerning erectile dysfunction.

Applying the unreasonable verdict standard, the court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings were open on the record and that the identified flaws did not undermine the overall reasonableness of the convictions.

Although one reference to the expert evidence was erroneous, it did not affect the result.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the respondent bank for allegedly charging undisclosed and unauthorized fees on foreign currency credit card transactions.

The motion judge had refused certification on the basis that compensatory damages could not be determined on a class-wide basis, as it would require individual assessments of how each cardholder would have behaved had the fees been disclosed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in applying a tort-like approach to assessing damages for breach of contract.

The Court held that an aggregate assessment of damages was possible under section 24 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his statement of claim, declaring him a vexatious litigant, and prohibiting further motions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claim against one respondent for failing to articulate a valid cause of action.

However, the court set aside the vexatious litigant declaration because no notice was given, and set aside the prohibition on further motions as the appellant's conduct did not meet the threshold.

The court also granted the appellant leave to amend his statement of claim regarding alleged breaches of the Condominium Act and unjust enrichment, while upholding the striking of the remainder of the pleading.

The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal harassment, attempting to obstruct justice, and breach of recognizance.

On the scheduled trial date, the trial judge ruled that the appellant's counsel was no longer on the record due to a prior endorsement, forcing the appellant to proceed unrepresented.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in interpreting the prior endorsement and that counsel remained on the record.

The Court held that the appellant's right to be represented by counsel was violated, requiring a new trial without the need to demonstrate actual prejudice.

The appellant was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder of his four-year-old niece in 1993 based on flawed pathology evidence.

Following a reference by the Minister of Justice, the Court of Appeal heard fresh expert evidence conclusively demonstrating that the deceased was neither sexually assaulted nor murdered, and that the trial experts were wrong.

The Court admitted the fresh evidence, quashed the conviction, and entered an acquittal, but declined to issue a formal declaration of factual innocence, holding that Canadian law does not recognize such a verdict.

The appellant was convicted of importing 5.9 kilograms of opium into Canada and sentenced to five-and-a-half years' incarceration.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting opinion evidence from RCMP officers, misdirected the jury on wilful blindness, and failed to adequately explain the knowledge requirement.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice from the officers' testimony and concluding the jury instructions on wilful blindness and knowledge were sufficient.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the large quantity of drugs involved.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the application judge erred in applying the Miglin test and that there was inadequate disclosure by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge properly applied the Miglin test.

The Court also held that the respondents made proper documentary disclosure, and the appellant's failure to review the documents or seek legal advice did not render the disclosure inadequate.

The appellant sued the respondents for damages arising from the alleged wrongful repudiation of an agreement of purchase and sale for a new home.

The respondents had originally agreed to purchase the home from a builder, but the builder's agreement prohibited assignment or sale without consent.

The appellant and her husband, an experienced real estate broker, knew of this prohibition but still entered into an agreement with the respondents to purchase the property.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the agreement was illegal as it was designed to defeat the builder's rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, concluding that the courts will not assist a plaintiff in recovering damages for the breach of an agreement intended to circumvent the known rights of an innocent third party.

The appellant lawyer sued his former client to recover surplus settlement funds and unpaid legal fees for services allegedly rendered outside legal aid certificates.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, noting that costs recovered are the property of Legal Aid Ontario and the appellant failed to prove any agreement for surplus funds.

The appellant also abandoned his claim for outside services at trial.

The appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal for trial costs were both dismissed.

The appellant appealed a finding of civil contempt and a two-month term of imprisonment imposed for flagrant disregard of multiple court orders in a family law dispute.

The orders required him to pay funds into court, freeze accounts, and provide an accounting of dissipated funds.

The Court of Appeal confirmed it had jurisdiction, holding that a finding of contempt is a final order.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the contempt finding amply supported by the record and the 60-day sentence fit given the appellant's deliberate breaches.

The appellant appealed his sentence, challenging the constitutionality of the fine in lieu of forfeiture provisions under s. 462.37 of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had imposed a fine of $119,700 with five years to pay and a two-year sentence in default.

The Court of Appeal declined to determine the constitutional issue, finding that the in-person appeal lacked the necessary factual foundation to assess whether the fine was grossly disproportionate.

Leave to appeal the sentence was refused.