Moldaver J.A.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and gun storage offences.

The Court of Appeal found that evidence of the appellant's refusal to answer police questions about a gun cabinet key was improperly admitted and repeated in the jury charge.

Additionally, the Crown failed to disclose a property report relevant to the gun storage charges.

Given the potential adverse inference on the appellant's credibility, the court quashed all convictions and ordered a new trial.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their joint venture action against the respondents.

The individual appellant had commenced the action while she was a discharged bankrupt, but the cause of action arose before her bankruptcy and was not disclosed to her trustee.

The motion judge found the claim was a nullity and refused to exercise equitable jurisdiction to regularize the proceeding due to the appellant's failure to disclose the asset.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's refusal to grant equitable relief given the appellant's non-disclosure and the subsequent delay.

The appellant appealed his sentence for participating in a savage beating motivated by an animus towards homeless people.

The trial judge considered the appellant's military status, noting his conduct brought dishonour on the Canadian military.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's consideration of these aggravating factors and held that the sentence was measured and reasonable, appropriately balancing the gravity of the crimes with the appellant's youth, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of paying for sexual services from a person under 18 years of age.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in her jury instructions regarding his defence of mistake of age.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge gave conflicting and confusing instructions on the burden of proof concerning whether the appellant took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing his arrest was unlawful and merely a ruse to search his backpack.

He also argued the trial judge failed to provide clear reasons for accepting one officer's evidence over another's.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge explicitly rejected the appellant's position and had a legitimate basis for the arrest.

The Court further held that there was likely no section 8 Charter breach regarding the backpack search, and even if there was, the evidence was properly admitted under section 24(2) applying the Grant framework.

The Crown appealed an acquittal from an in absentia trial.

The Court of Appeal held that both the trial judge and the summary conviction appeal judge erred by failing to consider section 24(2) of the Charter when addressing the Charter issues.

The appeal was allowed, the judgments below were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge in a bankruptcy and insolvency proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, declining to consider arguments that were not placed before the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot because the disposition had been overtaken by a subsequent disposition of the Board.

The court found no pressing issue of law to justify proceeding with the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting a loaded handgun and a statement into evidence following alleged breaches of ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal expressed reservations about the trial judge's finding of a s. 8 breach regarding the search warrant.

However, applying the Grant framework, the Court held that even if a breach occurred, it was not serious, the police acted in good faith, and the reliable evidence was needed to prove a serious crime.

The Court also upheld the admission of the appellant's statement despite a s. 10(b) breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her solicitor negligence claim against her former lawyers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding discoverability.

The court noted that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the material facts giving rise to the claim when she signed a settlement agreement with the benefit of new counsel, yet she waited more than six years to commence the action.

The appeal was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant appealed his 7.5-year global sentence for sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, and threatening death.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's analysis.

The court noted the extreme seriousness of the crimes, the appellant's commission of similar crimes while on bail, and psychiatric evidence indicating a moderate to high risk of sexually violent recidivism.

The court agreed that the protection of society was the overriding sentencing consideration.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim of negligent design.

The trial judge found that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a 'lazy line' would come into contact with a loop and cut through it.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, noting that the trial judge properly recognized manufacturers are not insurers and avoided applying hindsight.

The appeal was dismissed with costs of $12,500 awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised by the appellant were irrelevant and did not raise a genuine issue for trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $5,000 plus GST and disbursements.

The appellants appealed their convictions.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in foreclosing the appellants from challenging the factual underpinnings of the counselling to commit murder charges for which the appellant Vanderheyden stood convicted.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the counselling convictions provided a significant boost to the credibility of two unsavoury witnesses.

The court found that the curative proviso could not be applied, as it could not be satisfied that Vanderheyden would not have testified had the trial judge ruled differently.

The appeal was allowed, convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Crown conceded that the statutory presumption did not apply and it bore the onus to prove the absence of bolus drinking, which was a critical assumption underlying the expert's opinion.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown failed to meet this onus and that the trial judge misunderstood the burden of proof.

The appeal was allowed and a verdict of acquittal was substituted.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge erred regarding the totality principle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellant was not serving any sentence when sentenced on these charges, having completed his prior sentence nine months earlier.

The trial judge properly gave 2:1 credit for the nine months of pre-sentence custody.

The totality principle under s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code had no application.

The total sentence of 42 months was well within the appropriate range.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the disposition of the appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding wrongful dismissal and awarding 22 months' notice, eight months' Wallace damages, and $25,000 in punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of no cause for termination and the 22-month notice period.

However, the Court reduced the Wallace damages to four months, finding the employer did not act in bad faith by pursuing unproven allegations of dishonesty, withholding a reference letter, or couriering the respondent's belongings.

The $25,000 punitive damages award was upheld due to the employer's oppressive conduct in blacklisting the respondent's relatives and unlawfully deducting funds from her account at another bank.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a decision interpreting an accepted settlement offer under Rule 49.10.

The motion judge held that an offer to pay $6,000,000 in damages did not preclude a structured settlement, provided the appellants' obligations ended with the payment of the principal amount plus costs.

The Court of Appeal agreed, noting that the motion judge ensured no added financial or legal obligations were placed on the appellants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed their convictions for robbery and related offences.

The trial judge had recognized that the eyewitness identification evidence was insufficient on its own and relied on the similarity of signatures on credit card slips as confirmatory evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that this reliance constituted a misapprehension of the evidence, as the early morning slips were not tendered and the expert report stated there were insufficient comparable features.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.