Mark Siboni

The appellant was unsuccessful at trial, where the trial judge made no order as to costs due to her impecuniosity.

The appellant subsequently pursued an appeal and was again entirely unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the respondents, holding that they should not be deprived of their costs a second time despite the appellant's financial circumstances.

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 applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner denying his request under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act for access to notes made by an independent investigator appointed by the City of Toronto.

The investigator had been retained to review the procurement process for the Union Station redevelopment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the investigator was an independent contractor, not an employee or agent of the City.

Applying the correctness standard of review, the court concluded that the requested records were not in the custody or under the control of the City, and therefore were not subject to disclosure under the Act.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting a non-suit and dismissing his claims for false arrest, unlawful search, and Charter breaches against the police.

The appellant had been arrested for possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him with multiple bicycles and parts late at night.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant's own evidence established the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, meaning no prima facie case was made out.

The appellant challenged the authority of the City of Toronto to enact a by-law regulating the use of pesticides within the city under s. 130 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The motion judge upheld the by-law.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the broad and purposive approach to interpreting municipal powers applies to s. 130.

The court found that the by-law was enacted for purposes related to the health, safety, and well-being of inhabitants, and did not conflict with federal or provincial pesticide legislation.

The appeal was dismissed.