M.H. Tulloch

The appellant, who was previously found not criminally responsible for breach of probation, appealed a Review Board decision continuing his conditional discharge and denying an absolute discharge.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he continued to pose a significant risk to public safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable and supported by psychiatric evidence that the appellant lacked insight, was likely to discontinue medication, and would experience worsening persecutory delusions leading to a risk of criminal behaviour.

The moving party brought a motion to vary a previous order of the Court of Appeal and sought leave to issue a statement of claim for constitutional remedies.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no basis under the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary the order, as there was no evidence of fraud, mistake, or new facts.

The court agreed with the respondents that the motion was an abuse of process, frivolous, and vexatious, noting it was part of a long series of unsuccessful proceedings related to the Presto Card system.

The moving party was prohibited from bringing further proceedings against the respondents without leave of the court.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he challenged the admission of opinion evidence from witnesses identifying him as the "kicker" in a video of an assault, and the trial judge's failure to address certain exculpatory evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, holding that the witnesses' prior acquaintance with the appellant and their viewing of the video immediately after the assault placed them in a better position than the trial judge to make an identification.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as the appellant had served his custodial term and abandoned the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm against his nephew.

The appellant admitted to kicking the complainant in the head and body after the complainant fell to the ground during a physical altercation.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's claim of self-defence, finding the kicks were administered out of anger and a desire to inflict punishment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence, he did not misapprehend the law of self-defence, and his reasons were adequate.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention at a psychiatric hospital with privileges to live in approved community accommodation.

He argued the Board erred by refusing disclosure of materials from his original NCR hearing and by failing to order an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board had no jurisdiction to review the NCR hearing's procedural fairness.

The Court also held the Board's refusal to grant a discharge was reasonable, as evidence supported the finding that the appellant continued to pose a significant risk to the community and required hospital boundaries to maintain stability.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision setting aside a stay of proceedings for impaired driving charges.

The trial judge had originally granted the stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to delay.

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal, finding that the lower courts reasonably attributed a four-month adjournment to neutral delay rather than institutional delay.

The Court also agreed that the prejudice of additional legal fees did not override the public interest in a trial on the merits in a borderline delay case.

The trustee in bankruptcy appealed a motion judge's dismissal of its claim for half the proceeds of a fire insurance policy on the bankrupt's former matrimonial home, and the allowance of the bankrupt's former spouse's claim for 100% of a debt she paid as a joint guarantor.

The former spouse cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for another guaranteed debt based on the rule against double proof.

The Court of Appeal allowed the trustee's appeal regarding the insurance proceeds, finding no evidence of a matrimonial settlement giving the spouse sole ownership.

The Court dismissed the trustee's appeal regarding the first guarantee, upholding the motion judge's finding that the spouse's 'just proportion' was 100% due to pressure and lack of understanding.

The Court also dismissed the cross-appeal, affirming that the rule against double proof prevented the spouse from claiming the second guaranteed debt while the principal creditor also claimed it.

The appellant purchased a property from the respondent and later sought to void the transaction under s. 197(4) of the Environmental Protection Act, alleging it was not provided with a copy of a Director's Order requiring remedial work.

The application judge found that the respondent had provided the order, based on a holistic review of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual inferences or his refusal to draw an adverse inference for a failure to call a specific witness.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision varying overnight access based on a material change in circumstances.

The trial judge found the appellant neglected the child's reading homework and allowed the child to play age-inappropriate video games.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's application of the legal test or assessment of the evidence, noting the appellant did not testify to explain his conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.