OCA 2002

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

The respondent, a young offender, drove through a stop sign at an allegedly excessive speed and collided with another vehicle, killing three people.

The trial judge found the stop sign was difficult to see and could not determine the exact speed, concluding the driving was a departure but not a marked departure from the standard of care.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that the facts were disputed and the trial judge's conclusion did not amount to an error of law.

The successful respondent in an appeal regarding the Crown's breach of fiduciary duty to disabled veterans sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Crown argued for partial indemnity costs and requested that the quantum be referred to an assessment officer.

The dissenting judge would have awarded substantial indemnity costs due to the Crown's historical conduct.

However, the majority of the Court of Appeal held that because the Crown raised serious and important issues of law on appeal, the appropriate scale was partial indemnity.

The court unanimously agreed that the case was exceptional and referred the quantum of costs to an assessment officer.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a restricted handgun, receiving a six-year sentence.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude evidence obtained through a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights when police unlawfully knocked on his motel room door.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in his Charter analysis, the curative proviso applied because the trial judge explicitly accepted the appellant's wife's testimony as sufficient, standing alone, to justify the convictions.

The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his manslaughter conviction, arguing his statements to the police were involuntary.

The trial judge found that an officer had assaulted the appellant in an elevator prior to the interview but ruled the subsequent statements voluntary because they were not temporally connected to the assault.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapprehended the test for voluntariness, as the assault undermined the officers' credibility and the temporal connection was not broken.

The statements were ruled involuntary and inadmissible.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder after shooting the victim in the back of the head outside a courthouse.

At trial, the appellant claimed he acted in self-defence, fearing the victim would attack him due to previous gang-related shootings.

The trial judge refused to leave self-defence to the jury and excluded expert psychological evidence regarding post-traumatic stress disorder.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no air of reality to the defence of self-defence because there was no evidence of an imminent or reasonably apprehended attack at the time of the shooting.

The court also upheld the exclusion of the expert evidence and dismissed the sentence appeal, affirming the 8-year imprisonment term.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal received submissions concerning the costs of the appeal and a request to vary the award of costs of the trial.

The court fixed the appellant's costs of the appeal at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The request to vary the award of costs of the trial was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order appointing the respondent as receiver of two corporations, alleging a conflict of interest due to the respondent's role as trustee in bankruptcy for related parties.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the appointment order was final rather than interlocutory.

The Court admitted fresh evidence—a statement of defence filed by the respondent in related litigation—which crystallized a pervasive conflict of interest.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order appointing the receiver, and referred the matter back to the Commercial List Court, also setting aside the provision granting priority to the receiver's fees.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received Statutory Accident Benefits until a dispute arose.

After commencing litigation, the parties settled at a private mediation.

The insured later retained new counsel and successfully moved to rescind the settlement, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure requirements under section 9.1 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 9.1 does not apply to settlements reached after litigation has commenced.

The appellant, a 42-year-old school teacher, was convicted of sexual assault and sexual touching of a 13-year-old complainant he met on a chat line while pretending to be a 17-year-old.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the verdicts were unreasonable, the jury charge was unbalanced, and the trial judge erred in his instructions regarding child witnesses and in denying a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable, the jury charge fair overall, and a custodial sentence appropriate given the predatory nature of the offence.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after the complainant was attacked by three men outside a karaoke restaurant and struck in the eye with a broken glass.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in his jury instructions regarding eyewitness identification and party liability, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury charge and concluding there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the verdict.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment regarding the calculation of his net family property and the order for retroactive child and spousal support based on an imputed income.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the deduction of disposition costs from the Cyprus properties, finding the trial judge correctly addressed the issue reserved by the parties' consent.

The Court upheld the imputation of $50,000 in income due to the appellant's failure to make full financial disclosure and lack of medical evidence of disability.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by varying the start date for retroactive support from the date of separation to the date the Answer and Counterpetition was issued, reducing the arrears accordingly.

The appellant appealed his conviction for importing cocaine, arguing the trial judge improperly lumped his case with his co-accused and erred in rejecting his evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge explicitly considered the evidence against each accused separately and properly applied the standard of proof in rejecting the appellant's testimony.

The appellant appealed her conviction for importing cocaine, arguing the trial judge's verdict was unreasonable due to misapprehension of evidence, reliance on improper factors in assessing credibility, and failure to consider defence submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge carefully reviewed a wide range of factors, her credibility findings were supported by the evidence, and she had properly considered counsel's submissions.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action arising from a perforated bowel suffered during a colonoscopy and polypectomy.

They argued the trial judge erred by failing to determine the exact cause of the injury before concluding the standard of care was met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly rejected the appellants' theory that the electrocautery machine was set too high, and reasonably concluded the injury resulted from an inherent risk of the procedure.

The appellant husband appealed an order dismissing his application to vary a support order and appointing the respondent wife as an equitable receiver of his pension benefits to satisfy support and equalization obligations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the variation application, finding the husband's early retirement was voluntary.

However, the Court set aside the appointment of the wife as an equitable receiver, holding that the applicable pension legislation prohibits the enforcement of an equalization order against pension benefits.

The Court also found the appointment unnecessary for the support obligation, as the pension board was already diverting funds at source.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, were injured during a shore excursion in Grenada while on a Caribbean cruise.

They sued the Canadian tour operator, the American cruise line, and the Grenadian excursion provider and driver in Ontario.

The Grenadian defendants brought a motion to stay the action against them on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and held that Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the Grenadian defendants, as they had no connection to Ontario and it would be unfair to require them to litigate there.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for injuries sustained in a horse-related accident.

The appellants argued there were genuine issues for trial regarding whether the appellant intentionally held onto the lead shank due to the premises' condition, and whether the horse owners had prior knowledge of the horse's dangerousness.

The majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant's affidavit and evidence of the horse's breed and prior incidents created genuine issues for trial.

The dissenting judge would have dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's self-serving affidavit and hearsay evidence insufficient to survive summary judgment.

The appellant appealed an order of the Divisional Court regarding the partition of property.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the standard to refuse partition under s. 2 of the Partition Act requires malicious, vexatious, or oppressive conduct, as established in Silva v. Silva.

The court agreed with the Divisional Court that the appellant failed to demonstrate such conduct.

An alternative argument regarding child support under s. 32 of the Family Law Act was dismissed as it was not raised before the motions judge and lacked an evidentiary record.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The plaintiffs, Ontario residents, were involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York with the defendants, who were New York residents.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario against the New York defendants and their own insurer.

The New York defendants successfully moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and the eight factors from Muscutt v. Courcelles.

The court concluded that assuming jurisdiction over the out-of-province defendants for a foreign accident would violate principles of order and fairness, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants, Ontario residents, were injured during an excursion tour while vacationing in Costa Rica.

They brought an action in Ontario against several defendants, including the Costa Rican company that sold the excursion.

The Costa Rican company successfully moved to stay the action on the basis that Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction and, alternatively, that Costa Rica was the more convenient forum.

The Court of Appeal applied the real and substantial connection test and the principles of order and fairness, concluding that the Ontario courts could not assume jurisdiction over the foreign defendant.

The appeal was dismissed.