Marc Rosenberg

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a negligence action regarding the sale of a vehicle that had previously been in an accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error by the trial judge.

The court noted there was no evidence of negligence, as the respondent was unaware of the vehicle's accident history, and the case was pleaded solely in negligence rather than breach of contract.

The appellant appealed his convictions for attempted murder and related offences arising from a stabbing incident.

At trial, the appellant relied on self-defence, calling a witness who testified the victim attacked the appellant with a baseball bat.

The trial judge rejected this evidence and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge applied unequal scrutiny to the witnesses and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual findings, concluding the evidence overwhelmingly weighed against self-defence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for child pornography and weapons offences.

He argued the trial judge erred by not severing the charges, admitting his statement, refusing mid-trial disclosure of his computer, and providing the jury with a written copy of the charge.

He also argued the verdict was unreasonable and the sentence for the firearms offence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's discretionary decisions or findings of fact, and held the verdict was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly imposed a consecutive sentence above the minimum for the loaded restricted firearm.

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for threatening death, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board granting him a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued he did not pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded based on expert evidence that the appellant would stop his medication if unsupervised, quickly decompensate, and pose a significant risk of harm to the public.

The appellant appealed his sentence, introducing a Gladue report as fresh evidence to provide context regarding his Aboriginal background.

The Court of Appeal considered the fresh evidence and the appellant's rehabilitative efforts but found no error in principle in the trial judge's reasons.

The trial judge had already rejected a penitentiary sentence in favour of a reformatory sentence with probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, concluding the sentence was fit and fully reflected the principles mandated by Gladue and Ipeelee.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered by a jury.

The Court of Appeal found the jury verdict unreasonable, as the conclusion that the appellant was a party to the offence relied on mere speculation that the transaction was fraudulent from the outset or that the appellant aided the transaction after it was shown to be fraudulent.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal entered.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for offences involving cocaine and a firearm found in a vehicle.

He argued the trial judge erred in upholding a police search of a black bag and in instructing the jury on constructive possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police had reasonable grounds to open the bag for officer safety and the jury charge was appropriate given the firearm was in plain view.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence fell within the appropriate range.

The appellant was convicted of fraud over $5,000 and using forged documents after obtaining a fraudulent mortgage using her half-sister's identity.

She appealed her convictions, arguing they violated the Kienapple rule, and her 3.5-year sentence.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's refusal to order a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no legal nexus between the offences.

While the trial judge erred in principle during sentencing, the 3.5-year sentence was upheld as fit given the breach of trust and the appellant's history.

The Crown's appeal was allowed in part, with a $10,700 fine in lieu of forfeiture ordered based on the limited evidence of the appellant's control over the unrecovered funds.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court order that set aside the conditional certification of their proposed class action against Canada regarding the placement of Aboriginal children in non-Aboriginal foster care.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's finding that the case management judge erred by conditionally certifying the action when the statement of claim did not disclose a viable cause of action.

The Court also agreed that the certification motion should be heard by a different judge to avoid the original judge sitting in review of his own decision.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, quashing the Divisional Court's costs award because it failed to consider the public interest and novel legal issues raised by the case.

The appellant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on demeanour, reversed the burden of proof, and misapprehended evidence regarding a dropped wallet and lack of injuries.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge did not improperly rely on demeanour or reverse the burden of proof, and that any misapprehension of evidence was not material.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for wounding following a jury trial.

He argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding consent, party liability under sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code, and the offence of assault.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding any error regarding consent was harmless as it was unavailable on the facts, and the party liability instructions were unobjectionable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence properly reflected the appellant's significant record for violence.

The appellant was convicted of making, possessing, and distributing obscene material through his websites, which featured simulated explicit sex with violence.

He appealed his convictions and sentence, arguing errors in the admission of meta-tags, hyperlinks, written stories, and expert testimony, as well as deficiencies in the jury charge and a failure to grant a stay for delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions, and upholding the $28,000 fine as a fit sentence.

Following the release of the court's reasons for judgment on an appeal, the respondent Aviva Canada Inc. requested that the court reopen its decision based on a recently released Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the standard of review.

Aviva argued that the new decision altered the applicable standard of review from reasonableness to correctness due to concurrent jurisdiction provisions in the Insurance Act.

The court denied the request, noting that the parties did not agree an error had been made and finding that it was not in the interests of justice to withdraw the reasons and rehear the case on the merits.

The appellant, a designated dangerous offender, appealed the sentence of indeterminate detention.

The appellant argued that a lapse in hospital supervision demonstrated the disposition was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's ability to sexually assault a child during a brief evasion of supervision confirmed the appropriateness of the indeterminate detention disposition.

The court concluded there was no reason to believe the appellant could be controlled in the community.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the admissibility of his statements on the basis of alleged Charter breaches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's findings of fact.

The court held it was open to the trial judge to find the appellant was not detained during the early part of the search, the police were not required to reiterate his s. 10(b) rights, and he did not invoke his rights at the station.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on five gun-related charges.

The trial judge had excluded a seized firearm and a videotaped statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding the respondent was arbitrarily detained during a pretextual traffic stop contrary to s. 9, and his right to counsel was violated under s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding of a pretextual stop was a factual determination not subject to appellate review, and there was no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence under the Grant framework.

The deceased held an accidental death insurance policy with the appellant insurer that paid $1 million if he died in a common carrier accident.

The insurer claimed the deceased cancelled the policy over the phone in 1998.

After the deceased died in a plane crash in 2004, his estate and children sued, arguing the insurer cancelled the policy by mistake.

The trial judge admitted statements made by the deceased to his family after 1998 indicating his belief that the policy was still in effect under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule.

The jury found for the plaintiffs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in using the state of mind exception to prove past acts, but upheld the admission of the statements under the principled approach to hearsay due to sufficient threshold reliability.

The Court also held that s. 13 of the Evidence Act did not require corroboration for the children's testimony as they claimed as beneficiaries, not heirs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their fraud convictions, arguing that a production order for bank documents violated their s. 8 Charter rights due to the non-disclosure of statutory declarations.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that while a s. 8 violation occurred regarding personal documents, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) because the officer's carelessness did not render the breach serious enough to warrant exclusion.

The court found the trial evidence overwhelming and dismissed the appeals.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The parties agreed on the quantum of costs, and the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent costs of the appeal in the agreed amount of $12,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The respondents suffered property damage when their rented hot water heater leaked.

They brought a subrogated claim in Small Claims Court and were awarded damages.

The appellant's appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's further appeal, relying on the reasons given in the companion case of Szilvasy v. Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership, which involved the application of s. 9(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to the rental of a hot water heater.