OCA 2004

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing that exchanges between the trial judge and counsel during closing arguments revealed a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while some of the trial judge's comments were discourteous or unnecessary, they did not suggest bias but rather an appreciation of the formidable evidence against the appellant.

The court also rejected the argument that the trial judge misused the licence plate evidence.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court (General Division).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence fit and noting unanimous opinions that there was a significant risk the appellant would reoffend.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment with 15 years of parole ineligibility.

He argued the trial judge erred in his Vetrovec warning, his rolled-up charge on intent, his dismissal of a Corbett application, and the length of parole ineligibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury instructions, the Corbett ruling, or the sentence imposed.

The appellant physician appealed an order requiring him to cooperate with a peer assessment directed by the College's Quality Assessment Committee.

He attempted to argue that the Complaints Committee erred in its initial assessment, which the Court of Appeal held was an improper collateral attack on a decision not before the court.

The appeal and a motion to admit fresh evidence were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and misapplied the W.(D.) framework by approaching the case on an 'either/or' basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly weighed all the evidence, rejected the appellant's testimony, and accepted the evidence of the two young complainants who described similar incidents without collusion.

The appellant, a Canadian citizen, was committed for extradition to the United States on charges of securities fraud and money laundering.

He appealed the committal order and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order, arguing that the relaxed evidentiary standards in sections 32 and 33 of the Extradition Act violated his rights under sections 6 and 7 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and application, holding that the evidentiary regime accords with the principles of fundamental justice and applies equally to Canadian citizens and non-citizens.

The appellant abandoned its appeal from the judgment of Justice E.M. Stewart.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded unopposed costs to the respondent in the amount of $2,334.00.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting the original statement of a witness for the truth of its contents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence demonstrated the appropriate level of reliability and the trial judge did not err in admitting it.

The appellant appealed his criminal convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in her treatment of a prior inconsistent statement, misapplied the burden of proof under R. v. W.(D.), and failed to consider his evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge appropriately considered the relevant factors, properly applied the burden of proof, and correctly rejected the appellant's evidence as it was inconsistent with the credible evidence.

The appellant appealed a judgment of Justice Rogin dated October 31, 2002.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appeal adjourned sine die pending a reference to be made in relation to the matter.

Following written reasons, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the parties' submissions on costs.

The court declined to change the disposition of costs previously made.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his certiorari application challenging his committal for trial on charges including attempted murder.

At the preliminary inquiry, the judge refused to hear defence submissions on the committal, which constituted a denial of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal held that this error, while going to jurisdiction, originated as a procedural irregularity and was curable under s. 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant suffered no prejudice, as the evidence clearly supported a committal for attempted murder.

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

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and confirmed the certificates, deeming them to have been issued, filed, and continued as of September 28, 1997.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellants appealed an order vacating certificates under the Mining Act.

The Court of Appeal found that whether the motions judge was acting as a commissioner or a court, he was obliged to decide the matter on the real merits and substance of the case under s. 121 or s. 136 of the Act.

The appeal was allowed, the order vacating the certificates was set aside, and the certificates were confirmed.

The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment setting aside minutes of settlement and ordering him to pay spousal support.

The parties had signed a settlement in 1998 where the respondent wife accepted a lump sum and waived future support, believing the appellant was unemployed.

The trial judge found the appellant had failed to disclose substantial severance and contract income, taking advantage of the respondent's mental health vulnerability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding that the settlement was unconscionable and vitiated by the appellant's non-disclosure.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of dangerous driving following a road rage incident on a major highway where he aggressively passed the complainant, stopped his vehicle in the passing lane, and flashed his police badge.

He appealed his conviction and 30-day custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test for dangerous driving.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part only to credit the appellant for 10 days of pre-sentence custody, reducing the sentence to 20 days.

The court upheld the custodial nature of the sentence, emphasizing the appellant's abuse of authority and the danger posed to the public.

The appellant appealed his conviction for holding out, arguing the trial judge erred by relying on a police officer's testimony regarding slang terms as expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the testimony was properly admitted as the officer's lay understanding of a conversation to which he was a party.

This evidence, combined with the packaging and neighbourhood context, was sufficient to prove the charge.

The Crown brought ex parte applications under s. 487.055(1) of the Criminal Code for DNA databank orders against two repeat sexual offenders on parole.

The issuing judge granted the orders ex parte.

The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the provision and the ex parte procedure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of the provision but found that the issuing judge lost jurisdiction by proceeding ex parte without any evidence justifying the need to do so.

The appeals were allowed and the authorizations quashed.

The appellant appealed his conviction.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The respondents, having been largely successful on the main appeals concerning the interpretation of seizure and detention remedies under the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, sought costs totaling over $631,000.

The court declined to award costs to any party.

The court reasoned that the proceedings raised novel issues of statutory interpretation that engaged the public interest, the respondents were not completely successful as their cross-appeals were dismissed, and the appellant airport authorities acted reasonably in bringing the appeals given the lack of established jurisprudential authority.