Mary Lou Benotto

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder following a stabbing at a party.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on opportunity, motive, and prior inconsistent statements of two witnesses who recanted at trial.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to cross-examine its own witnesses under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, admitting their out-of-court statements as substantive evidence, and in his jury instructions regarding hearsay, post-offence conduct, and circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings in a family law proceeding for persistent failure to comply with court orders requiring financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that financial disclosure is the most basic obligation in family law and is automatic.

The Court held that the appellant's conduct in ignoring three court orders put him in the exceptional category of cases where the motion judge's discretion to strike pleadings was reasonably exercised.

The appellants were convicted of attempted mischief for blocking cattle trucks during a peaceful protest and received a conditional discharge.

Their summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

They sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, arguing their protest was protected expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave, holding that the appellants failed to serve a mandatory notice of constitutional question under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act, depriving the court of jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking corrections to clerical errors on the warrant of committal and adjustments to his pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown conceded errors in the recorded sentence and the calculation of 2012 pre-sentence custody.

The Court of Appeal corrected these errors and applied the Summers framework to grant 1.5:1 credit for the appellant's pre-sentence custody, noting that the 1:1 limit under s. 719(3.1) did not apply because the Crown had not proceeded with a bail revocation application under s. 524(8).

The appeal was allowed and the warrant of committal amended.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for specific performance and granting the respondent's counterclaim for damages arising from a failed residential real estate transaction.

The appellant argued he was unable to close because the respondent's solicitor denied his mortgage broker access to the property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to close because he lacked funds, and upholding the damages awarded on the counterclaim.

The landlord appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Landlord and Tenant Board order granting rent rebates to three tenants of cottage sites.

The landlord argued that applying the security of tenure provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act would extend the 20-year leases beyond 21 years, thereby contravening the subdivision control provisions of the Planning Act and rendering the leases void.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was bound by its previous decision in Matthews v. Algoma Timberlakes Corp., which held that the rent control provisions of the RTA applied to similar land leases.

The court declined to address the potential conflict between the RTA and the Planning Act as the landlord had not sought to overrule Matthews or requested a five-judge panel.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting his step-daughter while she was sleeping.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his testimony due to its lack of clarity and in drawing an unreasonable inference that his admitted 'thoughts' about the complainant were sexual in nature.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessment and inferences were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action following the death of a 22-year-old man in hospital.

The deceased had been switched from morphine to Dilaudid by the respondent physician, and the appellants alleged the dosage was excessive and caused his death by opioid overdose.

The trial judge accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the dosage met the standard of care and that the cause of death was not an opioid overdose.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to liability, standard of care, or causation.

The appellant was convicted of possession of stolen property and driving offences after a stolen car crashed into a parked truck.

At trial, the appellant claimed a man named 'Steve' was driving.

The trial judge rejected this evidence but made three errors of law: mischaracterizing the defence as an alibi, improperly applying the adverse inference under s. 258(3) of the Criminal Code to the issue of identity, and misusing the appellant's criminal record.

The Court of Appeal found that despite these errors, the evidence against the appellant was so overwhelming that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appeal was dismissed using the curative proviso.

The appellant was convicted of three counts of knowingly making a false statement in a loan application under the Canada Small Business Financing Act and sentenced to a conditional sentence and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $495,049.02.

He appealed the conviction, arguing it was unreasonable based on circumstantial evidence, and the sentence, arguing the fine exceeded the proceeds he personally benefited from.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the circumstantial evidence clearly established the invoices were false and prepared by the appellant.

The court also upheld the fine, noting the appellant had possession and control of the loan proceeds and transferred them out of the country, making it unnecessary to prove he personally benefited on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

The appellant brought a motion asking the panel to reconsider its decision, arguing the panel declined to address an issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to reconsider, noting the issue was not part of the directed issue before the trial judge.

The panel did, however, amend one sentence in paragraph 10 of its original endorsement.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing that the police officer's search of the vehicle's glove box and console violated her s. 8 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the search constituted a s. 8 violation, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

Applying the Grant factors, the court noted the officer acted in good faith, the appellant's privacy interest in the vehicle was minimal, and the seized evidence was central to the charge.

The appellants, two commercial truck drivers, were convicted of importing $3.5 million of cocaine after the drugs were found hidden in their trailer at the border.

They appealed their convictions, arguing they were 'blind couriers' and the trial judge erred in his credibility assessments, particularly regarding their knowledge of English and a purported alibi.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the sentences from 16 and 14 years to 12 and 10 years, as the original sentences were outside the range for first-time couriers.

The appellant was convicted of knowingly violating a condition of his Long Term Supervision Order prohibiting him from viewing pornography, after being caught watching a pornographic program at his half-way house.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by fast-forwarding through parts of the DVD and by applying an objective standard of mens rea.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the context of the program and correctly found the appellant had subjective knowledge that he was watching pornography.

The appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault following his participation in a prison riot where he severely injured an unconscious inmate.

He was sentenced to seven and one-half years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of parity, given the lighter sentences imposed on co-accused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disparity was justified because the appellant's participation was of significantly greater gravity and moral blameworthiness than that of the other participants.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol level.

He argued that the trial judge erred in finding the roadside breath demand was made 'forthwith' under s. 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal refused leave, holding that the proposed ground of appeal involved well-established legal principles and a fact-specific inquiry that did not raise a question of law alone of general importance.

The appellant, an octogenarian with medical issues, appealed his concurrent 12-month custodial sentences for historical sexual assault, interference, and exploitation of a child.

He argued the sentence should be served conditionally.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was below the usual range for prolonged sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust, and that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence despite the appellant's medical difficulties.

The appellant was convicted of several counts related to a home invasion and sentenced to 10 years in custody.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his alibi and in accepting the evidence of an unsavoury witness to establish identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or consideration of confirmatory evidence, including fingerprints and the timing of the arrest.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 10-year sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer of over $300,000 over 14 months.

She appealed her 10-month carceral sentence, seeking a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle.

The court noted the breach of trust, the duration of the scheme, and concluded the sentence was already very lenient despite mitigating factors such as self-reporting and a guilty plea.

The appellants were convicted in absentia of Highway Traffic Act offences after failing to appear for trial.

The certificates of offence contained discrepancies between the short-form description of the offence and the section number.

The appeal judge upheld the convictions, finding the certificates complete and regular on their face.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Crown conceded that the certificates were not regular on their face as required by ss. 9(2) and 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed, allowed the appeals, and quashed the certificates of offence.