OCA 2003

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision that overturned her acquittal at trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the summary conviction appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard to the trial judge's finding that the officer lacked the requisite grounds to make a breath demand under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge's finding was not unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and restored the acquittal.

The respondent sought costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found the issues straightforward, with the only complication being the need for supplementary factums.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent and fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also ordered that funds standing in court be paid out first to the respondent for trial and appeal costs, with any remaining balance to the appellant.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing entirely with the reasons and conclusions of the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for attempting to break into the complainant's home with the intent to assault her.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not specifically instructing the jury that the complainant's evidence regarding prior uncharged assaults was unreliable, as the parties had agreed her evidence regarding the main events was unreliable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury would have understood that all of the complainant's evidence was unreliable if unconfirmed, and that there was ample independent evidence of the appellant's intent.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had repudiated an employment contract and was not entitled to repayment of a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of repudiation but found the trial judge erred in awarding damages to the employee on a lost opportunity basis.

The Court varied the damages award to an amount representing one month's notice, fixed at $2,500.

The Crown requested to re-open a sentence appeal after discovering that an unknown 90-day consecutive sentence had nullified the probation order previously imposed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal re-opened the appeal and, on consent, varied the sentence for criminal harassment to twenty months plus three years probation to ensure the total period of incarceration remained under two years, preserving the probation order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for damages for injuries suffered when he was struck as a pedestrian by an unidentified motor vehicle.

The trial judge found the accident occurred in a vacant parking lot, not on a public highway, and therefore the reverse onus provision under s. 193(1) of the Highway Traffic Act did not apply.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding the appellant failed to prove the accident happened on a highway and that negligence could not be inferred from the injuries alone.

The appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed a finding of guilt for sexual assault against a classmate.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the burden of proof regarding credibility, improperly handled inconsistencies in the testimonies of the child witnesses, and misapprehended evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the criminal burden of proof when assessing credibility and reasonably addressed the minor inconsistencies in the children's testimonies.

The court emphasized that children may not recall precise details, but this does not mean they misconceived the core events.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable under s. 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act for the fraudulent removal of goods to defeat the respondent landlord's claim for rent arrears.

The trial judge awarded double the value of the removed goods, damages for the vacated premises, and solicitor-client costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the trial judge's findings of responsibility and fraudulent intent, and no basis to interfere with the damages or costs awards.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal in the context of Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act proceedings involving Air Canada.

The court awarded costs 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 insurer appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party claim for indemnification and a declaration of a duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the insurance coverage issues were not ripe for determination because the 'Completed Operations Hazard' clause was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence might be required.

The Court also upheld the declaration that the insurer had a duty to defend, as the claim was not clearly excluded from coverage.

The appellant, an aboriginal young person, appealed her disposition of eighteen months secure custody and six months probation for assault causing bodily harm, mischief, and failure to comply.

The Crown conceded the disposition was excessive.

Fresh evidence showed the appellant's aboriginal heritage had not been considered and she had made excellent progress in custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, varying the disposition to time served and striking the additional six-month probation period.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing her claims for malicious prosecution and defamation against the police services board and several officers.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that the claims were not properly pleaded until 2002 and were therefore statute-barred under the applicable limitation periods, including the Public Authorities Protection Act.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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

The parties agreed that costs for both the appeal and the original application should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the appellants costs of the original application fixed at $3,210 plus disbursements and GST, and costs of the appeal fixed at $6,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

Due to the sudden unavailability of a justice of the peace, the Regional Senior Justice of the Peace directed the Clerk of the Court to adjourn matters.

The respondent's case was adjourned by the Clerk, and the respondent successfully applied for an order prohibiting further proceedings in the Provincial Offences Court.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the prohibition order, relying on the reasons in R. v. 1283499 Ontario Inc., and remitted the matter for trial.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for harassment and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer threshold.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the appeal judge's endorsement of the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's conduct was persistent, ongoing, constituted harassment, and was not trifling in nature.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant law firm appealed to obtain a charging order over certain assets belonging to its former client, the respondent, for unpaid legal fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the law firm's services were not instrumental in obtaining the funds ultimately recovered.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the respondent could not or would not pay the account, as she had undertaken to pay the assessment award within thirty days.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion based on the record and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $12,500.

The appellant appealed her sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge's discretion.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.