OCA 2003

The appellant was successful on appeal in setting aside an order to convey a cottage property to the respondent.

All parties sought costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs to the appellant despite the respondent's ill-advised interlocutory steps, noting the litigation stemmed from the other respondent's evasion of child support and breach of the Family Law Act.

The court awarded modest costs of $3,000 to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a Practice Direction concerning civil appeals, effective January 1, 2004.

The directive revokes and replaces several previous practice directions and notices to the profession.

It provides comprehensive guidance on the application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, addressing judges, formatting notices of appeal, procedures for motions before a single judge or a panel, appeal management, pre-hearing conferences in family law and other appeals, perfecting appeals, scheduling procedures, and the handling of costs and post-hearing submissions.

The father applied to reduce his child support obligations under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines because the child was in his physical custody 50 per cent of the time.

The motion judge applied a strict formulaic set-off approach.

The Divisional Court allowed the mother's appeal, holding that the father had to adduce clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that the Table amount was in the child's best interests.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father's appeal, holding that the Divisional Court erred in applying a presumption in favour of the Table amount to s. 9 cases.

The Court of Appeal also held that the motion judge erred in applying a strict formulaic approach, and instead set out a discretionary framework that considers the Table amounts, the increased costs of shared custody, and the conditions, means, needs, and other circumstances of each spouse and the child.

The appellant, a self-employed lawyer, filed a proposal to his creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act which was accepted.

Following the proposal, he made income tax installment payments to the CCRA for the 1999 taxation year and subsequently claimed a refund.

The CCRA prorated the installments over the entire year and applied a portion to his pre-proposal tax debt.

The Court of Appeal held that the CCRA had no legal basis to apply post-proposal installment payments to pre-proposal tax debt, as this would allow the CCRA to recover its pre-proposal claim at 100 cents on the dollar contrary to the terms of the proposal.

The appeal was allowed and the CCRA was ordered to pay the refund.

The United States sought the extradition of the respondent, who had been convicted in California of criminal harassment.

The extradition judge discharged the respondent on the harassment charge, finding the US failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the conduct underlying the California conviction corresponded to the Canadian offence of criminal harassment, as California law did not require proof that the victim reasonably feared for their safety.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the US appeal, confirming that the balance of probabilities is the correct standard under s. 29(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, that the victim's trial transcript was properly admitted, and that the extradition judge's conclusion was not unreasonable.

The Chief Justice of Ontario issued a Practice Direction concerning civil appeals in the Court of Appeal, effective January 1, 2004.

The Practice Direction provides guidance on the application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, addressing the court, notices of appeal, motions, appeal management, pre-hearing conferences, perfecting appeals, scheduling, costs, and post-hearing submissions.

Arrêt constitutionnel majeur portant sur l'exclusion des couples de même sexe de la définition du mariage aux fins de la common law.

La Cour a appliqué l'analyse du par. 15(1) de la Charte et conclu que la définition hétérosexuelle du mariage portait atteinte à la dignité et aux droits à l'égalité des couples de même sexe, sans justification au regard de l'article premier.

La Cour a rejeté les prétentions fondées sur la liberté de religion et l'égalité religieuse de l'église intervenante, concluant que l'affaire visait l'institution juridique du mariage plutôt que sa dimension religieuse.

Comme réparation, la Cour a déclaré invalide la définition existante dans la mesure où elle contenait les mots « d'un homme et d'une femme », l'a reformulée immédiatement comme l'union de deux personnes, et a ordonné la délivrance et l'enregistrement des mariages visés.

The appellant appealed an effective sentence of 12.5 years for aggravated assault.

The trial judge had characterized the offence as the worst of its kind, noting the appellant's clear intent to torture the victim and lack of remorse.

The Court of Appeal distinguished the case law relied upon by the appellant and upheld the severe sentence, agreeing with the trial judge's characterization of the circumstances.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal.

The responding party failed to appear despite being advised of the hearing date.

The Court of Appeal proceeded with the motion and held that the appeal was barred by section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The motion was granted, the appeal was quashed, and costs of $2,000 were awarded to the moving party.

The appellant appealed a decision interpreting a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the word 'net' in section 2.03(a) of the lease applied to 'Taxes', and that the lease did not require the tenant to pay more than its share of the taxes actually paid under a 'Gross up' argument.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants, charged with the second-degree murder of their infant son, sought a review of a decision denying them bail.

The motion judge had denied bail on the secondary ground, citing concerns for the safety of the applicants' surviving child.

The Court of Appeal found that the surviving child, currently in the custody of the Children's Aid Society, could be adequately protected through strict release conditions prohibiting any contact.

The court concluded that detention was not necessary on the secondary or tertiary grounds and ordered the applicants' release subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding he breached a contract by tricking the respondent into signing a Trust Deed and Power of Attorney after promising her one-half ownership of a home.

The appellant argued the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds as it was not in writing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Statute of Frauds did not apply because the Deed was in writing and there was part performance when the respondent took possession and spent money improving the home.

The appellant appealed a decision striking their pleadings for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, citing leading jurisprudence on deep vein thrombosis and air travel.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the division of real estate commissions.

The trial judge had found that the principal of the broker corporation had agreed not to take any part of the appellant's earnings, but held that this waiver did not bind a new shareholder.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to distinguish between the corporation and its shareholders.

The corporation remained bound by the agreement regardless of the change in shareholders, and the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act did not entitle the broker to a percentage of commissions it had agreed to waive.

The appellants brought an action in the Superior Court alleging an unconstitutional exercise of discretion under section 114(2) of the Immigration Act regarding the deportation of a parent.

The motion judge declined jurisdiction in favour of the Federal Court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the Federal Court is the proper forum for immigration matters unless it is shown to be ineffective or inappropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

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

Costs were awarded to the respondent, Air Canada, against the appellant, Global Payments Canada Inc., on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $46,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant, Egmont Books Limited, appealed an order allowing the trustee to sell certain books, arguing that it had copyright and trade-mark rights in the books that prevented their sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Copyright Act had no application because there was no reproduction or publication of the books that would infringe copyright.

Consequently, there was no issue of constitutional paramountcy, the Personal Property Security Act applied, and the trustee was entitled to sell the books pursuant to the liquidation plan.

The applicant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, sought leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario refused leave to appeal for oral reasons and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis to the respondents, totaling $22,500.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision granting a bankruptcy petition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that acts of bankruptcy were established.

The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the trial judge made improper interventions during the proceedings, noting the interventions were appropriate to assist the proper conduct of the trial.

Following an appeal involving a long-term municipal employee who lost his employment due to amalgamation, the Court of Appeal issued a brief endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal and the proceedings below at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.