OCA 2002

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of several witnesses, including an expert who testified that the complainant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that defence counsel at trial had not objected to the evidence and that it was admissible to respond to the defence's attack on the complainant's credibility regarding delayed disclosure.

The court also found the jury charge on credibility to be sufficient.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for sexual offences.

He argued the trial judge rendered inconsistent verdicts by convicting him of some acts and acquitting him of others based on the same complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the allegations were logically severable and the acquittals did not imply the complainant was untruthful.

The court also dismissed grounds relating to incomplete Crown disclosure and the trial judge's approach to a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $8,500 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant challenged both conviction and sentence arising from historical sexual assault allegations made by his daughter.

The appeal focused on credibility findings, alleging reversal of the burden of proof, misuse of prior inconsistent statements, inadequate scrutiny of the complainant’s evidence, and misapprehension of evidence bearing on motive to fabricate.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof and the W.(D.) framework to the evidence as a whole, permissibly inferred bias from independently proven statements, and was entitled to accept the complainant’s core evidence despite inconsistencies on peripheral matters.

The court also held the verdict was not unreasonable under the Biniaris standard and found no basis to interfere with sentence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding liability and damages for a bridge collapse.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in findings of negligence under the Highway Traffic Act, failing to apportion negligence under the Negligence Act, misusing similar fact evidence, and improperly depreciating the cost of new materials used for repairs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings on negligence, noting contributory negligence was not pleaded or argued at trial, and upholding the depreciation figure as appropriate.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for various drug-related offences.

The Crown's case relied entirely on intercepted communications and derived evidence.

The appellants argued the wiretap authorizations violated s. 8 of the Charter due to lack of reasonable and probable grounds and failure to demonstrate investigative necessity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding the authorizations were properly issued and the evidence supported the convictions.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeals, varying one appellant's intermittent sentence to time served due to post-sentencing progress, and adjusting the other's intermittent sentence schedule to accommodate employment.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for criminal negligence causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The respondent, while under the influence of alcohol, struck and killed a pedestrian at high speed, then fled the scene and failed to seek assistance.

The Court of Appeal held that the conditional sentence was manifestly unfit as it failed to reflect the gravity of the offences and the principles of denunciation and general deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment was imposed.

The appellant appealed an order precluding him from contesting the respondent's financial claims due to his blatant disregard for court orders, specifically his refusal to make financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the preclusion regarding financial claims and found his claim for custody unrealistic, as he had not seen the nine-year-old child in almost five years.

However, the Court modified the order to allow the appellant to maintain his answer to the counter-petition solely on the question of access.

The appellant mother previously succeeded in an appeal permitting her to move from Ottawa to Oakville with her daughter and granting her sole legal custody.

The respondent father subsequently requested the court amend the judgment regarding custody, arguing it had not been contested.

The Court of Appeal affirmed its previous order granting sole custody to the mother, finding that joint custody requires a high degree of cooperation which was not present on the record.

The court also awarded costs to the appellant, fixed at $20,000 plus disbursements, taking into account the additional access costs the respondent would incur due to the move.

The appellant appealed his convictions for armed robbery, pointing a firearm, and being masked with intent, as well as his sentence of 17.5 years.

He argued the trial judge erred in instructions regarding eyewitness identification and prior statements, and that there was no evidence the handgun was a firearm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding any errors in the jury charge were harmless and there was sufficient circumstantial evidence that the weapon was a firearm.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the lengthy sentence was justified by the appellant's status as an untreatable, dangerous career criminal with a history of bank robberies.

The Crown appealed an order awarding costs to the accused following a stay of proceedings.

The stay was granted because the Crown failed to disclose notes of an eyewitness interview until the second week of a manslaughter retrial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the failure to disclose was a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution, justifying the rare award of costs against the Crown.

The appellant and a co-accused were jointly tried for trafficking crack cocaine.

Their defences were antagonistic.

At trial, the judge permitted the co-accused's counsel to cross-examine the appellant on the facts underlying past drug-related charges that had been withdrawn or resulted in acquittals, in order to show propensity and attack credibility.

The appellant was convicted and appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that an acquittal is a declaration of innocence for all purposes.

The highly prejudicial effect of cross-examining the appellant on the underlying facts of charges for which he was acquitted outweighed its probative value and compromised his right to a fair trial.

The appellants were convicted of sexually assaulting two 15-year-old complainants.

The trial judge found that the complainants' bizarre and contradictory evidence was due to 'bolus drinking' and relied on a letter written by one complainant to find a lack of consent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, as one complainant had consumed very little alcohol, and the letter suggested consensual activity that was later regretted.

The Court set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial, finding that while the trial judge erred, the verdicts were not unreasonable.

The appellant was convicted of possession of instruments adapted and intended to be used to commit forgery and sentenced to 11 months' imprisonment followed by one year of probation.

After the Supreme Court of Canada restored his convictions, the Court of Appeal considered his sentence appeal.

The Court found no error in principle by the trial judge but reduced the sentence to six months' imprisonment to account for the almost five years the appellant spent on bail pending appeal without breaching his conditions.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding that their insurer, Royal & SunAlliance, had no duty to defend claims against them arising from a sexual assault committed by an employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the abuse and harassment exclusion clause clearly excluded liability for the sexual assault.

The court rejected the application of the concurrent cause analysis, finding that the negligent supervision claims were subsumed into the intentional tort claim and derived from the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable in medical malpractice for failing to detect a lump on the respondent's testicle or advise him of the potential seriousness of his condition.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by ignoring a respectable body of medical opinion that supported not alarming the patient.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not choose between competing opinions on the standard of care for a family practitioner, as the appellant's expert was a urologist.

The Court upheld the finding that the appellant was negligent in failing to detect the lump or impress upon the patient the need for further examination.

The parties separated in 1989.

The husband, a disbarred lawyer who had been incarcerated for fraud, brought a claim for equalization of net family property in 1997, two years after the limitation period expired.

He moved for an extension of time under s. 2(8) of the Family Law Act.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the husband did not meet the requirements of good faith and lack of substantial prejudice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the husband's appeal, finding that he failed to show apparent grounds for relief given the wife's overwhelming claim for an unequal division, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.

The appellant father appealed findings of contempt and a suspended sentence imposed after he unilaterally removed his child to Bermuda, frustrating the respondent mother's access rights.

The father argued his appeal was timely under the Criminal Appeal Rules.

The Court of Appeal held that civil contempt proceedings arising from matrimonial litigation are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, rendering his appeal of the contempt findings out of time.

The appeal of the sentence conditions and the mother's cross-appeal regarding child support and costs were both dismissed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought a motion for a stay of an order restraining its members from picketing at courthouses during a lawful strike, pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

OPSEU argued that peaceful informational picketing is a protected form of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that a total ban was unnecessary.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting a stay.

While tentatively accepting jurisdiction as a single judge to hear the motion, the court dismissed the motion on the balance of convenience branch.

The court held that the public interest in ensuring unimpeded access to the courts, as established in BCGEU, outweighed the harm flowing from the infringement of the picketers' constitutional rights.