Morris A. Singer

The appellant, the paternal grandmother of two young children, appealed a family court decision granting a Crown wardship order with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appeal judge dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the family court judge's assessment of the children's best interests, particularly regarding the appellant's inability to prevent domestic violence and criminal conduct in her home.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the decisions below and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant was severely injured while exercising a horse at a racetrack.

His worker's compensation claim was denied because the trainer who hired him failed to maintain coverage as required by the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing.

The appellant sued the trainer, the Ontario Racing Commission, and the racetrack owner for negligence.

The trial judge found only the trainer liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that neither the Commission nor the racetrack owner owed a private law duty of care to the appellant to ensure compliance with the rules, as their statutory mandates were to serve the public interest rather than private individuals.

The appellant wife appealed and the respondent husband cross-appealed the trial judge's equalization payment calculation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in valuing the wife's RRSPs and the husband's pension, and substituted values based on the evidence.

The Court also allowed the cross-appeal, finding the trial judge erred in denying the husband deductions for pre-marriage equity in a home, credit card debts, and costs awards.

The wife was awarded $15,000 in trial costs.

The appellant mother appealed a trial judge's decision awarding custody of the child to the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's carefully considered reasons, which focused on the child's best interests.

The trial judge had also ordered the father to pay for the mother's airfare to facilitate access due to her limited means.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondents had never effectively resigned their positions as directors of the corporation.

The appellants also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence alleging that the respondents and their solicitors fraudulently created and backdated the corporation's by-laws.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's credibility findings.

The motion for fresh evidence was also dismissed as untimely and not credible.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence containing serious allegations regarding the conduct of the respondents' trial counsel.

The respondents' counsel, who also appeared on the appeal, failed to file a factum or responding material and sought an adjournment to challenge the fresh evidence, conceding his inexperience and lack of judgment.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the Court of Appeal granted the adjournment and ordered the respondents to pay the appellants $2,500 in costs thrown away.