Marvin A. Catzman

The Union appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction to issue remedies against Ministry of Labour inspectors regarding work refusal investigations under s. 43(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Prior to the appeal, the underlying dispute was settled and the statutory provision was amended.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal as moot, declining to exercise its discretion to hear it due to an incomplete record and judicial economy.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 15-year parole ineligibility period.

He appealed both the conviction and the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury was properly instructed and the verdict was reasonable.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the trial judge over-emphasized the appellant's dangerousness without adequately considering his personal circumstances, including his lack of a criminal record and tragic background.

The parole ineligibility period was reduced to 12 years.

In ongoing CCAA proceedings, the appellants (Cisco) appealed an order by Farley J. that lifted a stay against registration, allowing the respondent (Inc.) to re-register its security interest under s. 30(6) of the PPSA.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeals, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's conclusion that Cisco suffered no prejudice from the late discovery of Inc.'s security interest.

The appellant appealed his criminal conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to give limiting instructions regarding a videotaped experiment, another individual's prior assault and alleged confession, and the appellant's after-the-fact conduct.

The appellant also argued the Crown's closing address improperly contained personal opinions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury instructions and concluding that while the Crown's expressions of personal opinion were improper, they did not undermine the fairness of the trial.

The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography after downloading images from the internet for personal use, with no evidence of distribution.

The trial judge imposed a custodial sentence, emphasizing the horrific nature and substantial amount of the images.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle by not focusing enough on the appellant's specific circumstances, including his cooperation, significant rehabilitative steps, and the severe personal consequences he suffered.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied to an 18-month conditional sentence with strict terms.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the lower court's dismissal of the appellant's application for a stay based on unreasonable delay.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the sentencing judge erred by fettering his discretion and rejecting the possibility of a conditional sentence for the specific type of offence, contrary to the Supreme Court's guidance in Proulx.

The sentence was varied to a 12-month conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum on costs following an appeal.

The court noted that the increase in the monetary award authorized by the court placed the judgment significantly above the appellant's Rule 49 offer to settle.

Consequently, the court varied the trial costs disposition to award the appellant party-and-party costs up to the date of the offer and solicitor-and-client costs thereafter.

The appellant was also awarded the costs of the appeal on a party-and-party basis.

The appellants agreed to purchase a property, but the transaction failed to close after the respondent registered a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against title, claiming a right of first refusal.

A motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed on the basis that there was a triable issue.

The appellants subsequently sued the respondent for damages under s. 103(4) of the Courts of Justice Act for registering the CPL without a reasonable claim.

The trial judge dismissed the action, holding that the previous order refusing to discharge the CPL was a decision in rem and rendered the issue res judicata.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a motion to discharge a CPL only determines whether there is a triable issue, not the ultimate merits of the claim, and therefore cannot support a plea of res judicata.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claim for partition and sale and granting other relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the partition and sale claim, finding that the joint venture agreement provided a proper basis for denying this relief.

However, the Court found material facts in dispute regarding mortgage disclosure and directed those issues to proceed to trial.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict apportioning liability for a motor vehicle accident involving a child on a rock slide, and the trial judge's award of a $25,500 costs premium to the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the jury's finding that the driver was only 10% responsible, noting the high threshold for interfering with a jury's apportionment.

The court also upheld the costs premium but allowed an amendment to reduce the judgment by $10,921.44 based on recent case law.

The appellants appealed an order approving a debtor's proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, seeking an order that the debtor pay them $244,049.10.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the approval of the proposal.

The Court noted the appellants could pursue claims against individuals or follow statutory procedures to question the claim amount.

Following the release of reasons for judgment allowing the appeals by the Canadian Red Cross Society and Canada, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on the costs of the trial.

The Court ordered that the Canadian Red Cross Society shall have its costs on a party-and-party scale from the plaintiffs, with no costs to or against Canada or Ontario.

The disposition of Bayer's costs ordered by the trial judge was not disturbed.

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of section 43 of the Criminal Code, which provides a defence for parents and teachers who use reasonable force to correct a child.

The appellant argued that the provision violates sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while section 43 engages a child's security of the person, it does not violate the principles of fundamental justice.

The court also held that section 43 does not constitute state-imposed cruel and unusual punishment under section 12, and any infringement of equality rights under section 15 is justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent 6.5 months' notice for wrongful dismissal after 11 months of employment.

The appellants argued that the respondent's retention of $2,780 from a licensing fund constituted just cause for dismissal, that she had received prior notice of termination, and that the notice period was inordinately high.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the single act of retaining funds did not amount to just cause in context, that the prior events did not constitute legal notice, and that the notice period, while on the high side, was within the acceptable range given the respondent was induced to leave secure employment.

The appellant purchaser entered into an agreement to buy a parcel of land from the respondent vendor.

The vendor's predecessor in title had obtained a consent to sever abutting lands, conveyed the severed lands to herself, and subsequently conveyed the remaining lands to the vendor.

The purchaser requisitioned the title, arguing the conveyance to the vendor violated the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act because the predecessor still owned the abutting lands at the time of the conveyance.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that the exception in s. 50(6) of the Planning Act only applies if the remaining part is conveyed before the consented part.

Since the consented part was conveyed first, the exception did not apply, and the conveyance to the vendor violated the Act.

The appellant suffered significant losses in his commodities trading account and successfully sued his brokerage firm for negligent supervision.

The trial judge awarded damages but deducted profits the appellant had made in previous years.

The appellant appealed the quantum of damages and the dismissal of his breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that no fiduciary duty existed, as the appellant was an experienced trader who directed his own account.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on damages, holding that the trial judge erred in deducting past profits, as each trade was a separate transaction and the earlier profitable trades did not constitute an actionable tort.

Damages were increased to $405,741.

The respondent was dismissed from his position as executive director of the appellant association for sexually harassing female employees.

The trial judge found that the conduct occurred outside the workplace and was consensual, concluding there was no just cause for dismissal.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision, finding that the trial judge failed to account for the power imbalance between a supervisor and employees, and erred in characterizing work-related social events as outside the workplace.

The Court held that the respondent's pattern of sexually harassing conduct created an intolerable work environment and constituted just cause for dismissal.

The appellant was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to two murders committed by a principal.

The Crown relied on the principal's murder convictions to prove the principal committed the offences.

While the appellant's appeal was pending, the principal's murder convictions were quashed, and the principal subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal admitted the quashed convictions and the manslaughter pleas as fresh evidence.

The Court dismissed the appeal but substituted the appellant's conviction for the included offence of being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter, imposing a sentence of time served.

The appellant wife appealed a child support order, seeking to increase the monthly award to reflect the respondent husband's substantial income from exercising stock options.

The trial judge had excluded the stock option income from the husband's annual income under s. 17(1)(c) of the Child Support Guidelines and awarded vacation expenses under s. 7.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in excluding the non-recurring stock option income from the annual income calculation.

However, the court found that vacation expenses could not be awarded under s. 7 as they are not extracurricular activities.

Instead, the court exercised its discretion under s. 3(2) of the Guidelines, considering the husband's increased financial ability from the stock options, and awarded an additional $1,000 per month in child support.

The deceased purchased two retirement savings plans and designated family members as beneficiaries.

Shortly before her death, she executed a holograph will listing her assets, including the plans, and leaving bequests to various individuals and charities.

The estate trustee argued the will implicitly revoked the prior designations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under sections 51 and 52 of the Succession Law Reform Act, a revocation or designation in a will must relate expressly to the plan or the prior designation.

The holograph will failed to meet these statutory requirements, so the original beneficiary designations remained valid.