Mohammed M. Rahman

This is a costs decision following a successful appeal by the mother in a family law matter involving the Hague Convention and refugee status.

The mother's appeal overturned the application judge's decision to return the child to the country of origin after Canada granted the child refugee status.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the mother as the wholly successful party, fixing costs at $50,000 for the application and $30,000 for the appeal, totalling $80,000, while reversing the application judge's award of $75,000 to the father.

Appeal from conviction for aggravated assault of a two-year-old child.

The appellant was convicted based on medical evidence establishing that the child's severe cranial fracture and extensive bruising could not have resulted from accidental falls or self-inflicted injuries.

The appellant provided multiple inconsistent accounts of events, culminating in trial testimony that the child fell from a bed and then engaged in self-injurious conduct.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's credibility based on inconsistencies with medical evidence, the implausibility of the narrative, and the failure to mention the critical fall from the bed in earlier statements.

The appeal challenged whether the trial judge erred by rejecting credibility based on the appellant's access to disclosure and presence at trial.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error and applying the curative proviso based on overwhelming evidence.

Appeal of a family law trial decision involving a short marriage with a religious ceremony in July 2017 and civil ceremony in April 2019.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims for a resulting or constructive trust in the matrimonial home and for equalization of net family property, finding the appellant not credible due to inconsistent financial disclosure, use of false names, doctored bank statements, and manipulative conduct.

The trial judge imputed annual income of $86,553 to the appellant for child support purposes, awarded the respondent a $20,000 Mehr payment under the marriage contract, and ordered costs of $85,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors, no denial of natural justice, no bias, and no basis to interfere with the costs award.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order dismissing her wrongful dismissal claim.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on two independent grounds: first, that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction because the claim arose from the interpretation and application of a collective agreement; and second, that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the limitation period issue alone, finding that although the appellant's claim was discoverable in late April or mid-May 2020, limitation periods were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic until September 14, 2020.

The two-year limitation period therefore commenced on September 14, 2020, and expired on September 14, 2022.

The appellant commenced her claim on October 27, 2022, which was outside the limitation period.

The appellant was convicted of one count of sexual assault, three counts of assault, and one count of uttering threats against his common law spouse.

He was acquitted of one count of assault.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred by artificially compartmentalizing the complainant's testimony and by relying on the complainant's lack of embellishment to bolster her credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's approach to assessing credibility and the weight of evidence.

A land developer appealed the dismissal of his civil action against the City of Toronto as an abuse of process.

The developer had sought site plan approval and variance applications for a property development, all of which were denied through administrative processes including the Committee of Adjustment and the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Rather than pursuing judicial review, the developer sued the City alleging impropriety and misconduct, seeking damages and costs.

The motion judge dismissed the action as a collateral attack on administrative decisions and refused leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reviewable error and no basis to interfere with the discretionary decision to refuse amendment.

The appellant appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board continuing his detention at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The appellant sought a conditional discharge with terms requiring attendance and voluntary readmission.

The Board found that continued detention was necessary as the least onerous and restrictive disposition given the appellant's significant threat to public safety, chronic drug-induced psychosis, severe addiction, and need for supervised community reintegration.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was supported by expert evidence regarding the necessity of hospital-approved housing and the inadequacy of Mental Health Act provisions for rapid intervention.

An appeal from a Superior Court decision dismissing an appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision.

The appellant challenged a finding of incapacity to consent to antipsychotic medication treatment.

The appellant and amicus curiae argued that the appellant was denied statutory rights advice and that the evidence did not support the incapacity finding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding that the appellant received proper rights advice as required by statute, that no additional rights advice obligation arose when the appellant later expressed intent to apply to the Board, and that the Board's finding of incapacity was supported by evidence and involved no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his defamation action against his first cousins.

The appellant alleged that the respondents made defamatory statements accusing him of sexual assault: one through an alleged text message sent in 2019 and another through an alleged repetition of that message in 2021.

The motion judge found no admissible evidence of the alleged text message and rejected the appellant's evidence regarding its repetition based on credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility determinations and noting that the appellant had narrowed his claims at the motion stage, thereby distinguishing the issues from a separate related action.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss or stay the respondents' claim for non-payment under a promissory note.

The appellant argued that Delaware was the appropriate forum based on a forum selection clause in a related agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Delaware had no appropriate connection to the dispute and that Ontario was the clearly more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the estate of Nadia Wyszatko.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal but made a minor variation to remove Richard Wyszatko's liability for a loan, interest, and legal fees.

The respondent was successful on the appeal and sought costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent and declined to hold the non-party appellant liable for costs.

Appeal of a summary judgment motion where the motion judge found that the appellant and respondent had entered into a valid partnership agreement to acquire, renovate, and rent a property in Scarborough.

The respondent contributed to the purchase price and renovation costs but only the appellant's name was on title.

The appellant obtained mortgages exceeding the parties' agreement without the respondent's consent.

The motion judge granted declaratory relief recognizing the respondent's 50 percent interest in the property via resulting trust, issued a permanent injunction against harassment and interference, and ordered a reference to determine damages.

The appellant appealed on grounds of procedural fairness, text message interpretation, and appropriateness of summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasoning or application of the summary judgment process.

The appellants, a corporation and its sole officer/director, appealed a summary judgment foreclosure decision.

The respondent held a first mortgage on a residential property in Niagara Falls.

The appellants failed to pay the mortgage when it matured on February 2, 2023.

The appellants argued the mortgage was invalid because the respondent had not signed the commitment letter, and raised various other defenses including allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and that a lease with a tenant barred foreclosure.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for foreclosure, payment, and possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the mortgage was validly executed as evidenced by payment of funds and registration of the charge, and rejecting all other arguments as unsupported by evidence.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application to quash the suspension of his driver's licence.

The suspension was imposed under section 41(1)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act following the appellant's guilty plea to impaired driving in New York State, pursuant to a reciprocal agreement between Ontario and New York.

The central issue was whether the guilty plea and conditional discharge in New York constituted a conviction under Ontario law.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the statutory provision and properly disposed of all issues raised, including natural justice and Charter arguments.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the absence of a transcript of the oral hearing prejudiced his appeal rights.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment award of $366,513 in damages arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The appellant had waived the financing condition in an agreement of purchase and sale for $1,252,500 but failed to close due to lack of financing.

The respondents subsequently sold the property for $965,000.

The motion judge found the respondents had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their damages by refusing the appellant's subsequent offer to purchase at a lower price, particularly given the appellant's prior default and lack of proof of financing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no errors in the motion judge's legal analysis or assessment of evidence and no basis for interfering with the denial of the adjournment request.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision in a failed real estate transaction.

The respondent seller brought an action for breach of contract after the appellant buyer failed to close due to inability to obtain financing.

The respondent subsequently sold the property at a lower price and recovered damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial and no error in the motion judge's application of law to the facts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000 all inclusive.

The appellant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was the correct interpretation of the test for post-104-week IRBs under section 6(2)(b) of the Schedule.

The appellant argued that the test requires consideration of employment in a competitive, real-world setting comparable in nature, status, and remuneration to the insured's former employment.

The respondent insurer argued that the statutory test does not include such requirements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that while factors such as competitive real-world setting, status, and remuneration are relevant considerations in the evidence-based analysis, they are not stand-alone requirements of the test.

The appellant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, particularly given evidence that wedding planning remained a viable option.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder on the sole ground that the trial judge erred in dismissing a mistrial application.

The Crown had improperly elicited inadmissible hearsay evidence regarding the appellant's connection to a residential address and inadmissible opinion evidence identifying the appellant in surveillance video from that address.

The trial judge provided a timely and forceful mid-trial corrective instruction and reinforced it in the final charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the mistrial application, finding that the corrective instructions were adequate to remedy any prejudice and that a mistrial was not necessary.

The court emphasized that mistrial is a remedy of last resort and that where corrective instructions can safely repair a compromised trial, they should be employed.

Appeal from a conviction for second-degree murder.

The appellant admitted to being the shooter and guilty of manslaughter but contended that his intoxicated state and the suddenness of events should have created reasonable doubt as to whether he possessed the requisite mens rea for murder.

The trial judge provided a rolled-up instruction to the jury on the cumulative effect of evidence regarding intoxication on the mental element for murder.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to adequately describe evidence of his intoxication from a bartender and evidence of a brewing altercation inside the bar.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's approach and upheld the conviction, applying the curative proviso based on the overwhelming Crown case.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder in the death of his former girlfriend and the 18-year parole ineligibility period imposed at his second trial.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on hearsay regarding statements by the appellant's deceased mother and that the trial judge erred in imposing the 18-year parole ineligibility period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions and determining that the 18-year period was a fit sentence given the horrific nature of the crime, the appellant's high moral culpability, and the absence of remorse.