Michael McRae Doyle

The appellants brought a pre-hearing motion seeking to resolve an item on a warranty assessment report and to exclude certain expert reports.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the motion to the first day of the hearing, citing the unavailability of a key witness.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the appellants' motion was premature and could be fairly addressed at the commencement of the hearing without prejudicing the parties.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding an appeal of a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation to disallow a claim under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates for September 2014.

The Tribunal also directed Tarion to issue a decision letter relating to a specific item in its Warranty Assessment Report, which would become part of the appeal, and set deadlines for document disclosure and witness lists.

The applicants appealed a decision of Tarion Warranty Corporation denying most of their new home warranty claims.

At the hearing, the applicants withdrew all claims for monetary damages and instead sought declaratory relief regarding Tarion's practices and alleged fraud by the builder.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicants failed to present evidence to prove their claims on a balance of probabilities and that the relief sought was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had been subject to a bail condition prohibiting him from driving while also serving a 90‑day administrative driver’s licence suspension under the Highway Traffic Act.

After the suspension expired and a temporary licence was issued, he drove and was charged with breaching the bail condition.

The trial judge acquitted on the basis that the accused may have honestly forgotten the bail condition and therefore lacked the necessary mens rea.

The Superior Court held that s. 145(3) requires subjective fault and that an honest mistake of fact may raise a reasonable doubt, while a mistake of law cannot.

As there was some evidentiary basis for the trial judge’s reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s state of mind, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that it was a 'builder' under the applicable consumer protection legislation.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred by not using a quantitative analysis of the work and materials supplied.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's preference for a qualitative or functional test over a quantitative test was not an error of law.

The Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant had primary control of the construction and was therefore a builder was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing errors in the trial judge's assessment of her daughter's evidence, the use of a blended voir dire, misapprehension of an officer's evidence regarding a TTC machine, and the lawfulness of her arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that its jurisdiction is limited to errors of law alone and none of the issues raised met this threshold.

The court held that credibility assessments are for the trial judge, the blended voir dire did not cause unfairness, the misapprehended evidence did not affect the conclusions, and the arrest was lawful as the officer found her committing the offence.