OCA 2004

The appellant pleaded guilty to trafficking one gram of marijuana and appealed his sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that despite the appellant's terrible criminal record, the sentence had to be proportionate to the offence under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

Leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to time served.

The appellants, Ontario defendants, sought to stay proceedings in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing there were parallel proceedings in the United States.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash and the appeal, noting the remarkable feature that the Ontario defendants sought to stay proceedings in their home jurisdiction while their U.S. counterpart denied the proceedings were parallel.

The court found a clear juridical advantage for the respondent to proceed in Ontario, where the contracts were offered and the defendants' assets were located.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal held that even if a soil engineering report had been admitted, it did not support the appellants' contamination claims, as there was no evidence regarding when the contaminants were placed, their effect on property value, or the property's potential use.

The Court found no genuine issue for trial on any of the causes of action and dismissed the appeal, awarding the respondent $5,000 in costs.

The parties settled their dispute prior to the hearing.

The Court of Appeal endorsed that the appeal was abandoned without costs.

The appellants failed to appear for their appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs of $2,000 to the respondent bank.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment, arguing the motions judge erred by failing to grant an adjournment.

The appellant sought a stay of the judgment pending a Rule 15.02 motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis for granting a stay or demonstrating the value of a limited stay.

The appellant, a mortgagee in possession, sought to terminate a fixed-term residential lease on 60 days' notice pursuant to section 53(4) of the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Divisional Court's finding that section 51(2) of the Tenant Protection Act, which requires termination at the end of the fixed term, is paramount due to the primacy clause in section 2(4) of the Tenant Protection Act.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that found him dangerous and issued a detention order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the legal framework from Pinet v. St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital and that its factual findings regarding dangerousness and the necessity of a detention order were fully supported by the evidence.

The appellant, a former prison guard, commenced an action against the Crown and several individuals for workplace discrimination, harassment, and defamation.

The motion judge struck the action on the basis that the essential character of the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance procedure under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the collective agreement, or alternatively the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the essential character of the dispute was workplace discrimination and harassment, which must be resolved through the statutory and collective agreement mechanisms rather than the courts.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order permitting the respondent to withdraw an admission regarding damages after two and a half days of trial.

The trial judge had ordered a mistrial and awarded the appellant costs thrown away to allow them to consider their position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's order was a discretionary one that caused no prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to conduct the exercise prescribed in a previous order.

As the Court of Appeal could not make the requisite determination on the material before it, the appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination.

The appellant appealed from a Summary Conviction Appeal Judge's decision upholding his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the SCAJ's decision regarding conviction, as the trial judge properly assessed the complainant's evidence and gave adequate reasons.

On sentence, the Crown conceded the SCAJ erred in imposing a $2,000 fine alongside custody and probation, and in imposing a DNA order when the Crown had not appealed the trial judge's refusal to make one.

The fine and DNA order were struck, but the 100-hour community service order was upheld.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed, and the appeal as to sentence was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a family law decision.

On consent of the parties, with no one appearing, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and issued an order in accordance with the approved draft order filed by the parties.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing her claim against the municipality for a pedestrian accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge that on the uncontested facts, there was no basis to extend the municipality's statutory duty to repair under s. 284 of the Municipal Act to pedestrian traffic at the specific location of the accident.

The court noted, however, that the duty to repair is not strictly limited to areas specifically designated for pedestrian traffic.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action by the trial judge.

The trial judge had dismissed the action due to a pattern of non-compliance with two different court orders over more than a year, which prevented the scheduled trial from proceeding.

The Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the trial judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

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

The court considered written submissions and ordered the appellant to pay costs to the respondent, Domtar Inc., fixed at $13,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their Rule 21 motion, which argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs' claims arose under a collective agreement.

Prior to hearing the merits, the Court of Appeal raised the issue of its own jurisdiction.

The Court concluded the motion judge's order was interlocutory, as it did not finally decide whether an arbitrator or the trial judge should determine the arbitrability of the claims.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction and quashed the appeal.

The landlord applied to the Tribunal for an order requiring four co-tenants to pay rent arrears.

Three of the co-tenants had permanently vacated the apartment before the application was brought.

The Tribunal held it could only make an order against the tenant still in possession.

The Divisional Court reversed, holding that possession by one co-tenant constituted possession by all.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, restoring the Tribunal's decision.

The Court held that a 'tenant in possession' under s. 86 of the Tenant Protection Act requires some form of control over the unit, and a tenant who has completely and permanently vacated is not in possession, meaning the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an order against them.

The appellants appealed a decision approving a receiver's recommended settlement.

They argued the motions judge failed to properly apply the principles from Crown Trust v. Rosenberg.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge appropriately applied the Soundair principles, considered the differences between expert reports, and made no palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed his conviction for mischief, arguing the case involved his fundamental right to communicate with elected officials.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary conviction appeal judge's decision, finding that the appellant crossed the line by wilfully interfering with the lawful use and operation of his MPP's fax machine, thereby interfering with other citizens' rights to communicate.

The trial judge's finding that the appellant acted out of anger and frustration, rather than a desire to communicate, was supported by evidence.