Marc Rosenberg

The appellant, former Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, sued the League's member clubs and various individuals for almost $19 million following his dismissal.

The defendants successfully moved to strike out most of the statement of claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the claims for breach of confidence, injurious falsehood, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, permitting certain claims for negligent misrepresentation and defamation to proceed against specific defendants, subject to the delivery of a fresh amended statement of claim to cure pleading deficiencies.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving over 80, arguing that the Crown could not rely on the presumption of identity because a 46-minute gap between his arrival at the police station and the first breath test meant the test was not taken 'as soon as practicable'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that 'as soon as practicable' means within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances, not 'as soon as possible'.

The court found sufficient evidence that the police acted reasonably and did not give unreasonable priority to other tasks during the delay.

The appellant, an aircraft maintenance company, negligently lost parts of an aircraft left in its possession for repair and storage.

The appellant claimed a lien for its unpaid repair and storage charges.

The respondent bank, which held a security interest in the aircraft, took possession and received insurance proceeds for the lost parts.

The appellant argued that the bank could not set off the cost of the lost parts against the lien claim because of an alleged agreement that the aircraft owner would insure against loss, and to prevent double recovery.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurance was not obtained to protect the appellant from its own negligence, and applying the principle that a wrongdoer cannot benefit from an innocent party's insurance.

The bank was entitled to equitable set-off.

The appellant sued an Assistant Crown Attorney for defamation after the respondent provided incorrect information about the appellant's criminal record to another Crown Attorney during a bail hearing.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the action was statute-barred and protected by qualified and absolute privilege, with no evidence of malice to defeat the privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing there was no genuine issue for trial regarding malice and that absolute privilege applied to communications made in respect of court proceedings.

The appellant appealed a matter to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

A publication ban was ordered prohibiting publication until the end of the trial.

No reasons for decision or outcomes are provided in the available text.

Following the plaintiff's successful appeal to certify an environmental claim as a class proceeding, the court determined the appropriate costs awards for the certification motion, the Divisional Court appeal, and the Court of Appeal.

The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs for all stages, imputing success at the certification motion stage despite the plaintiff having substantially narrowed the claim on appeal.

Recognizing the public interest nature of the environmental class action under s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, the court awarded the plaintiff $90,000 for the motion, $65,000 for the Divisional Court appeal, and $50,000 for the Court of Appeal.

The respondent brought a motion requesting the Court of Appeal reconsider its decision not to order a trial on whether a right of first refusal was extended by oral agreement.

The court dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no evidence of an oral agreement specifically addressing the extension of the right of first refusal.

However, the court clarified its previous order to specify that paragraph 4 of the application judge's judgment was not set aside, as it had not been appealed.

The court also granted a temporary stay of its judgment pending the disposition of the respondent's leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada and granted leave to register a certificate of pending litigation against the property.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing there was no unequivocal refusal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge and summary conviction appeal judge's inference of an unequivocal refusal was available on the facts, and thus no error of law was demonstrated.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable due to problems with eyewitness identification procedures and inconsistencies in the description of the getaway car.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and that the verdict was supported by a formidable circumstantial case, including the appellant's association with a car closely matching the getaway car.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the allocation of pre-trial custody.

The Crown conceded the error.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to time served.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with the court upholding the restitution and probation orders, finding the trial judge made no error in principle regarding the appellant's ability to pay.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, noting that the trial judge had acceded to a joint submission and that the respondent would have already served the sentence had the proper order been made.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was within the acceptable range and the trial judge made no error in principle.

The court noted that this was not a case of a joint submission, and the sentence imposed was not a significant departure from the Crown's suggested range.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motions judge and dismissed the appeal, fixing costs at $10,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, gave insufficient reasons, and erred in admitting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence were cogent and sufficient.

The Court also held that any Charter breach was minor and admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed their convictions for sexual assault and carrying a concealed weapon, as well as the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's appreciation of the identification evidence or in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal on the concealed weapon charge.

However, the Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in applying s. 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Given the time already spent in custody, house arrest, and community service, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to time served and striking out the probation order.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property, firearms offences, and animal neglect.

He appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in principle by considering unproven prior offences.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding the trial judge improperly based the sentence in part on unadmitted prior offences without applying s. 725 of the Criminal Code.

The Court reduced the possession sentences to 15 months concurrent, struck out the probation term as overly punitive, and modified the animal prohibition order under s. 446(5).

The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender and sentence of indeterminate detention following guilty pleas to assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault.

He argued the trial judge erred by rejecting the 'burnout theory'—that his age would reduce his risk of violence—and by dismissing his psychiatrist's opinion that he could be managed in the community as a long-term offender.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded that the burnout theory was speculative and that the preconditions for community management were absent given the appellant's history of violence and lack of motivation to change.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for an assault where he struck the victim with a beer bottle and slashed the victim's throat.

The Court of Appeal found the conditional sentence manifestly unfit, emphasizing that denunciation and deterrence were paramount for such a grave offence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to ten months' imprisonment, taking into account the five months the respondent had already spent on house arrest, followed by three years of probation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an application regarding property ownership.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that there was no evidence the respondent owned or paid for the property.

The court also upheld the costs order, noting the appellant pursued the application even after learning of the bankruptcy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision interpreting Minutes of Settlement in a family law dispute.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion, finding that the motion judge was entitled to look at the entirety of the circumstances given apparent inconsistencies in the language of the settlement and releases.

The Court agreed that further negotiations concerning the final equalization payment were limited to the ultimate disposition of a specific asset paid into court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.