OCA 2004

The appellant appealed his conviction for a narcotics offence, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the totality of the evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the appellant was the only occupant with knowledge of the narcotics.

The court concluded that the verdict was one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding a fraudulent document (exhibit 4).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no misapprehension and noting the trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence primarily because it was inconsistent with his admitted mode of practice.

The sentence appeal regarding a term of the probation order was also dismissed as the term was agreed to by counsel, not punitive, and had rehabilitative potential.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to consider defence evidence and failed to provide adequate reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to consider important evidence from the appellant's wife, did not give reasons for rejecting it, and overlooked problematic aspects of the complainant's evidence including a motive to fabricate.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered, though the Court noted the Crown may wish to consider whether proceeding is in the interests of justice given the appellant had already served his conditional sentence.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow their pleadings to be amended to include a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, expressing serious reservations that the conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, and agreeing with the motions judge's alternative finding of laches.

The appellant vendor appealed a trial judgment finding that its failure to construct a cathedral ceiling in a new home was a fundamental breach of the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusion, noting that the cathedral ceiling was a crucial feature of the contract and the vendor's unilateral change provision did not apply to fundamental changes.

The court also rejected the argument that the purchasers affirmed the contract by delaying their rescission, finding that they rescinded within a reasonable time after learning of the change.

The appeal was dismissed and the purchasers were entitled to the return of their deposit.

The appellant appealed the dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere as the Board did not misapprehend the evidence and its decision to override the joint submission was reasonable.

The appellant appealed an Order of Committal for Extradition.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found no basis to interfere with the decision of the lower court judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by Justice K. Ross.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the sentencing and held that the sentence was fit.

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

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on narcotics charges and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender decision.

He argued that the new Extradition Act's evidentiary provisions were unconstitutional, that time limits for the authority to proceed were breached, and that the extradition judge erred in his assessment of the conduct and evidence.

He also challenged the Minister's surrender decision on Charter grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the application for judicial review, finding the legislation constitutional, the time limits functionally met, the committal justified by the evidence, and the Minister's surrender decision reasonable.

The appellant appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed for introducing narcotics into a penitentiary.

The trial judge had accepted a joint submission from experienced counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the appellant's unblemished past and remorse, the serious aggravating factor of introducing drugs into a penitentiary meant the sentence was not demonstrably unfit.

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

On consent, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in accordance with the terms of a filed draft order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action after an adjournment was refused.

The Court of Appeal found that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, an adjournment should have been granted.

The appeal was allowed and the order dismissing the action was set aside, subject to strict conditions including setting the action down for trial within 30 days, proceeding on a peremptory basis, and depositing $5,000 as security for costs.

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

The Court of Appeal considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's high degree of moral blameworthiness, his failure to address a long-standing alcohol problem, his failure to comply with court orders, and his criminal record.

The Court concluded that while the global sentence was substantial, it was not manifestly excessive.

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

The appellant was terminated from her employment of 15.5 years while dealing with medical issues.

The trial judge found the employer acted in bad faith and initially awarded 12 months' notice, which she later increased to 16 months after being informed of a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The appellant appealed the notice period and the dismissal of her claim for aggravated and punitive damages.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in increasing the notice period after learning of the settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding the 16-month notice period was within a reasonable range and that a trial judge has broad discretion to alter a judgment before it is formally entered.

The appellants appealed their committal for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges and sought judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

They challenged the constitutionality of sections 32 and 33 of the Extradition Act, which allow the requesting state to rely on an unsworn record of the case.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding it was bound by its previous decision in Yang.

The Court also upheld the Minister's decision to surrender the appellants, rejecting arguments that the prosecution should occur in Canada, that the potential for life imprisonment violated fundamental justice, and that the Minister should have sought assurances for pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for sexual assault.

The Crown conceded that evidence of the appellant's impending jail term should not have been admitted at trial.

However, the Court of Appeal found that the admission of this evidence did not cause any substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appeals against both conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

On consent, the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial on one count.

Based on fresh evidence, the court allowed the sentence appeal on the remaining counts and varied the sentences to time served, finding no basis to reincarcerate the appellant.

The Ontario Waste Management Association brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal involving environmental issues.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, subject to conditions regarding factum length, oral argument time, costs, and filing deadlines.

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal clarified its previous order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The Court confirmed that the trial of the issue was ordered only on Part 4 of section 444.1(1) of the Municipal Act, as the offer to lease entered into before June 11, 1998, satisfied Part 1 of the section.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to consider whether the Crown proved lack of consent and knowledge of lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no air of reality to the issues of consent or mistaken belief in consent, as the complainant was intoxicated and repeatedly said 'no'.

The sentence of 40 months' imprisonment, in addition to 16 months' pre-sentence custody, was upheld as fit.