OCA 2005

The defendant reported a spill of cooling tower water to the Ministry of the Environment.

A provincial officer telephoned the defendant to demand a written report about the spill.

The defendant refused, arguing that such a demand must be made in writing by a Director under the Environmental Protection Act.

The defendant was charged and initially convicted of obstructing a provincial officer, but was acquitted on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that a provincial officer does not have the statutory authority to demand additional information by telephone, as such powers are reserved for the Director or must be exercised during a physical inspection.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice, seeking to have charges quashed or a new preliminary inquiry ordered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that the provincial court judge had already decided to convert the proceedings into a preliminary inquiry, a decision not subject to the current appeal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his counterclaims for a declaration that he owned certain technology.

The motions judge found that the appellant had assigned any rights in the technology to his employer and that his employment contract precluded him from claiming ownership upon termination.

The Court of Appeal agreed that there was no genuine issue for trial and dismissed the appeal.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning a costs order made against an accused following a dismissed pre-trial motion for third-party records.

The Crown opposed the intervention, arguing the record was inadequate to resolve the broader policy issues.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the moving party had the expertise and interest to provide a positive contribution, leaving the scope of argument to the panel hearing the appeal.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for oral reasons and awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $3,000.

The appellant, an aboriginal man found not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering his continued detention.

The appellant argued the Board erred in finding he remained a significant threat to public safety and failed to adequately consider his aboriginal background.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the Board has a positive duty to ensure unique factors associated with aboriginal accused are considered under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, the failure to elicit more information in this case did not amount to a reversible error.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault and breach of probation, and from the sentence imposed.

The Crown conceded that the trial judge erred in permitting reply evidence regarding the appellant's arrest.

However, the Court of Appeal applied the curative proviso, finding that the elements of the offence were made out on the appellant's own evidence that he pushed his common law spouse with a broom handle and swatted a candle at her.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, but leave to appeal the sentence was granted to reduce the sentence by six days to account for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his convictions on the ground that the trial judge failed to properly consider whether the Crown had disproved unconscious influence among the three complainants when admitting similar fact evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly addressed the potential effect of contact on the probative value of the evidence and concluded that the testimony was not tainted.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding the interpretation of a commercial agreement and alleged misrepresentations about a liquor licence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the terms of the liquor licence were generally known to the public and could be learned through due diligence.

The court also upheld the finding of fact that no misrepresentation was made and found no basis for granting relief from forfeiture.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge correctly stated the applicable principles and reasonably concluded that the delay was inordinate, raising a presumption of prejudice.

As the appellants provided no evidence to explain the delay, the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice in a bankruptcy matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the result followed the disposition of a companion action appeal (C43482) which had also been dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction, challenging the trial judge's findings of credibility regarding himself, his wife, and the grandmother.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for the first-degree murder of his wife by cyanide poisoning.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior fraudulent behaviour.

The Court of Appeal found the admissibility of the bad character evidence to be borderline at best, but applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The Court concluded that the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming and there was no reasonable possibility that the impugned evidence tipped the balance or that a new trial would produce a different verdict.

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual offences, including indecent assault, gross indecency, and sexual assault against two complainants.

He argued the trial judge erred in defining consent, instructing on criminal records, admitting similar fact evidence, and handling prior inconsistent statements.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown's concession that the conviction on one count was unreasonable and quashed it.

The court dismissed the remainder of the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's instructions or evidentiary rulings.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the underlying action had not been settled.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction, as the order finally disposed of the fundamental issue of whether a settlement existed and the action continued.

On the merits, the Court upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no agreement to settle, noting that the original exchange of emails was ambiguous and subsequent conduct did not resolve the ambiguity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant teachers' federation appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing its application for judicial review of an arbitration award.

The grievance concerned a teacher returning from pregnancy leave who was assigned to teach a different subject than she taught before her leave.

The arbitration board held that under s. 43(1) of the Employment Standards Act, the teacher's 'position' meant a teaching position at the same school in a subject for which she was qualified, not necessarily the exact same subject.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's finding that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness, and that the arbitration board's interpretation was reasonable given the principal's statutory power to assign classes under the Education Act.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal of an order directing it to pay principal and accrued interest to the respondents and to pay further sums into court.

The moving party argued the order was interlocutory and that the respondents were estopped from appealing because they had derived a benefit from the order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the order was final in respect of the respondents' secured priority position.

The Court also held that the respondents were not estopped from appealing, as they had complied with the order and immediately notified the moving party of their intention to appeal.

The appellant was committed for trial on historical sexual assault charges.

Prior to trial, the appellant brought motions to exclude a complainant's evidence due to mental incompetence and to apply historical procedural law requiring corroboration.

The Superior Court judge deferred these issues to be decided at trial.

The appellant appealed, characterizing the motions as an application to quash the committal for trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown that the rulings were interlocutory pretrial evidentiary decisions, from which no appeal lies until a verdict is rendered.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed her youth court sentence.

The Crown acknowledged that, regardless of whether the original disposition was fit, the appellant had made remarkable progress in turning her life around, as evidenced by a post-sentence report.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, varying the custodial portion of the sentence to time served and setting aside the probation order.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on two counts of sexual assault following a jury trial.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by excluding the respondent's statement to police, improperly leaving the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent to the jury, and refusing to allow expert DNA evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the complainant's evidence suffered from many frailties and improbabilities, and that any errors made by the trial judge were harmless and would not have affected the outcome.