Marvin A. Catzman

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that an employee manual could not eliminate the respondent's entitlement to reasonable notice for the 10 years of employment preceding its introduction.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's objective assessment of repudiation and found no palpable and overriding error in the findings of fact regarding mitigation.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that limited its damages for lost parking spaces to the value of 20 spaces ($40,650) and dismissed its claim for injurious affection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on acceptable expert evidence and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of damages.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal decision that overturned the accused's conviction.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found that the trial judge erred in admitting the certificate of a qualified technician, applying the criminal standard of proof to whether the accused received a true copy under s. 258(7) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the standard of proof for admissibility under s. 258(7) is a balance of probabilities.

The arresting officer's evidence that he read through the copy to ensure it matched the original was sufficient to support the trial judge's finding.

The conviction and sentence were restored.

The appellant appealed an order staying her Ontario action.

On appeal, she raised a new issue regarding whether her claim against the respondents was barred by Quebec limitation periods, which would affect the juridical advantage analysis.

Because there was no evidentiary record on this issue, the Court of Appeal amended the lower court's order to provide for a conditional stay of the Ontario action pending the final determination of the limitation period question under Quebec law.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and choking with intent to commit an indictable offence against his wife.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for assault causing bodily harm, finding it amply supported by the evidence.

However, the court set aside the choking conviction, concluding that the choking was part of the assault itself and not done with the specific intent to enable or facilitate the assault.

The appeal was allowed in part, and an acquittal was entered on the choking count.

The appellant installed a video surveillance camera facing his neighbour's backyard, recording 24 hours a day for over a month due to barking dogs.

He was charged with mischief for interfering with the lawful use and enjoyment of property.

He was acquitted at trial but convicted on summary conviction appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, finding that the continuous surveillance objectively and subjectively interfered with the neighbour's enjoyment of her property, and the appellant acted knowingly or recklessly.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credibility or the use of a conversation with a third party.

The court also held that the sentence was fit, even if the trial judge improperly used the appellant's lack of remorse as an aggravating factor.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant pleaded guilty to cultivation of marihuana.

The trial judge rejected a joint submission for 90 days' imprisonment and imposed an 8-month sentence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in concluding the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence reduced to 90 days' imprisonment followed by 12 months of probation.

The tenant of a commercial building operated a bar and sought to exercise an option to renew its lease.

The landlord refused to renew, alleging the tenant was in default due to continuous over-serving of alcohol, which resulted in intoxicated patrons causing disturbances, vomiting, and urinating around the building.

The application judge granted the tenant's application for a declaration that it had validly renewed the lease.

The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal, finding that the tenant was in subsisting breach of the lease covenants at the operative date for renewal.

The Court held that the landlord was not required to give notice of default to refuse renewal, and that the landlord's acceptance of rent waives forfeiture of the existing term but does not bar it from refusing the renewal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the timing of an incident and failed to properly assess the complainant's motive to lie.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and it was unnecessary to address every defence argument regarding motive.

The court also upheld the DNA order, noting the aggravating circumstances of the appellant being in a position of trust and the complainant being 13 years old.

The appellant, an aboriginal offender, appealed his 9-year sentence for a brutal and planned sexual assault involving a home invasion and stabbing.

He argued the trial judge failed to give due consideration to s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the trial judge properly applied Gladue principles and found that for such a violent and serious offence, the sentence for an aboriginal offender would be similar to that of a non-aboriginal offender.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and robbery following a jury trial and sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment with an order for increased parole ineligibility.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction on prior discreditable conduct and by failing to leave the defence of theft with the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the discreditable conduct evidence was properly admitted as part of the narrative and there was no air of reality to the theft defence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's lengthy criminal record and poor prospects for rehabilitation justified the increased parole ineligibility period.

The Crown appealed a disposition judge's refusal to make a discretionary DNA order against two young offenders convicted of break and enter and theft.

The Court of Appeal held that the disposition judge erred in failing to give reasons as required by the Criminal Code.

The Court further held that the assumption that a DNA order is in the best interests of the administration of justice for adult offenders does not apply to young offenders, and the statutory factors must be considered in light of young offender legislation principles.

The appeal was allowed and the matter referred back to the disposition judge.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that a conditional sentence should have been granted.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge gave careful and extensive reasons for rejecting a conditional sentence on the facts of the case, which involved the threat of a knife against a vulnerable victim.

Finding no error in principle, the Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, challenging the jurisdiction of the First Nations constables involved in his case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the constables had jurisdiction arising from the Police Services Act and their appointment by the Commissioner of the O.P.P., applying the precedent set in R. v. Stephens.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in principle by assuming a conditional sentence was unavailable for the offence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found no such error in the sentencing judge's reasons and, deferring to the sentencing judge's disposition, dismissed the appeal.

The dissenting judge would have found an error in principle and imposed a conditional sentence based on the appellant's positive pre-sentence report.

The young person appealed their convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in finding their acts aided in the commission of the offence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's actions rendered it easier for the offence to be committed, and thus there was no error in the trial judge's conclusion.

The Crown appealed a sentencing judge's decision regarding a DNA order for a young person under s. 487.052(2) of the Criminal Code.

Although the respondent conceded the sentencing judge made errors in principle, the Court of Appeal found the judge's consideration of the statutory factors persuasive and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by importing the requirement of an additional offence into section 430 of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the trial judge failed to undertake the appropriate analysis under section 429(2) to determine whether the act was done with legal justification, excuse, or colour of right.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was directed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, designation, and sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decisions and dismissed the appeal.